Here's the problem. Any project with a datagrid is going to tear through those
ID's in a heartbeat as you are testing.
Bob S
> On Aug 21, 2017, at 21:58 , Brian Milby via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I think there may be a strategy to avoid a large part of the ID collision
> issue.Wouldn'
On 2017-08-22 00:23, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:
I can’t recall getting an explanation of what the dead end was but my
guess is that it was fact that a merge conflict would be a nightmare
to sort out and it is _very_ hard to write a non-lossy stack file
format that won’t have a lot of
> On 22 Aug 2017, at 2:58 pm, Brian Milby via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
>
> I think there may be a strategy to avoid a large part of the ID collision
> issue.Wouldn't need full on UUIDs, just assign a range to each developer
> working the UI.Upon import they could even be collapsed dow
I think there may be a strategy to avoid a large part of the ID collision
issue.Wouldn't need full on UUIDs, just assign a range to each developer
working the UI.Upon import they could even be collapsed down to the natural
order range or left as is.It would require the tempor
> On 22 Aug 2017, at 3:17 am, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> work stopped on it when we reached a dead end with the dVCS 'stack dir' idea
> - based on ideas Monte developed in lcVCS.
I can’t recall getting an explanation of what the dead end was but my guess is
that it was fac
On 2017-08-21 18:09, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:
What about something like
import into [objectRef] from array [arrayRef]
OR
update [objectRef] from array [arrayRef]
where the array would be in the format of the export and the object
would
be an existing object.
There are a few
What about something like
import into [objectRef] from array [arrayRef]
OR
update [objectRef] from array [arrayRef]
where the array would be in the format of the export and the object would
be an existing object.
I've been looking at the code and think that it would be straightforward to
t
On 2017-08-21 12:06, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:
On 21 Aug 2017, at 7:58 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
wrote:
I think its been suggested before that a 'loadStack' message might be
quite useful (perhaps it should be 'createStack' - we have
'deleteStack' which is probably suf
> On 21 Aug 2017, at 7:58 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I think its been suggested before that a 'loadStack' message might be quite
> useful (perhaps it should be 'createStack' - we have 'deleteStack' which is
> probably sufficient for the antonym) - allowing a stack to 'd
On 2017-08-21 01:31, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:
Right now you need to handle preOpenStack in stack A and setup the
hierarchy because stack B does not retain the behavior property when
saved and does not get any kind of message when used as a behavior. It
may actually be a good idea to
10 matches
Mail list logo
