Ok I did not read it :)
indeed in that case definitively into SmallIint
Stef
On Mar 20, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> For me I see that more as a menu to rename a package :)
>
> The script does not rename a package. It just lists the code that is
> not contained in any Monticello pa
> For me I see that more as a menu to rename a package :)
The script does not rename a package. It just lists the code that is
not contained in any Monticello package.
Lukas
--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
___
Pharo-project mailing list
For me I see that more as a menu to rename a package :)
Stef
On Mar 20, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> Why don't we add it to MC?
>
> I am not a big fan of random untested scripts on classes somewhere in
> the system.
>
> They rot very fast and people won't find and know how to use th
> Why don't we add it to MC?
I am not a big fan of random untested scripts on classes somewhere in
the system.
They rot very fast and people won't find and know how to use them. I
don't really see the relation of MCWorkingCopy to unpackaged code. For
me is more like a possible bug that can be det
lukas
Why don't we add it to MC?
Because it may make people think that they can rename a package and
do not lose
ancestry.
Stef
On Mar 20, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> Why why why is the default position of whoever wrote the above code
>> to
>> NOT contribute to the community?
Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> Why why why is the default position of whoever wrote the above code to
>> NOT contribute to the community? I dont get it. For me it would be the
>> first thought that enters my mind... "perhaps someone else might find
>> this useful".
>>
>
> Thank you for this excellent
> Why why why is the default position of whoever wrote the above code to
> NOT contribute to the community? I dont get it. For me it would be the
> first thought that enters my mind... "perhaps someone else might find
> this useful".
Thank you for this excellent idea.
I added it as a Code Critics
Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>> Long answer: By renaming all the categories and protocols (this can be
>>> automated using the OB-Refactoring and OB-Regex tools), creating a new
>>>
>> Would those support finding orphaned package extensions? Especially with
>> removing stuff and reorganizing we wil
>> Long answer: By renaming all the categories and protocols (this can be
>> automated using the OB-Refactoring and OB-Regex tools), creating a new
>
> Would those support finding orphaned package extensions? Especially with
> removing stuff and reorganizing we will have that need occasionally.
No
Lukas Renggli wrote:
> Short answer: It is not supported by Monticello.
>
> Long answer: By renaming all the categories and protocols (this can be
> automated using the OB-Refactoring and OB-Regex tools), creating a new
Would those support finding orphaned package extensions? Especially with
rem
This question raised several times. In a general way, you can't.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On 19 Mar 2009, at 16:41, Alain Plantec wrote:
> Thanks
> Alain
>
> ___
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr
Short answer: It is not supported by Monticello.
Long answer: By renaming all the categories and protocols (this can be
automated using the OB-Refactoring and OB-Regex tools), creating a new
package and committing that one. You'll loose the version history and
thus the ability to merge.
Lukas
On
Thanks
Alain
___
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
13 matches
Mail list logo
