11 Sep
2015
11 Sep
'15
6:13 p.m.
On 09/11/2015 08:20 AM, Usman Bhatti wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Dale Henrichs
<dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com
<mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote:
On 9/11/15 6:09 AM, Usman Bhatti wrote:
Yep, you and me both:) Let me know how it goes...
Dale
Hi,
It seems that Metacello does not consider PackageName-xyz and
PacakgeName-BranchName-xyz as the same package. I suspect it
because when I look at the packages loaded by two different
configurations with and without branch names as package name
suffixes are not the same. Could someone knowing the internals of
Metacello confirm it?
So, here is a log of Metacello of the loadDirective for
ConfigOfGlamour with and without packages with branch names. I
have truncated the output to highlight important parts of the log.
----------- Metacello log follows ----------------------
Without branching (Rubric and Glamour-Morphic-Renderer loaded
only once):
linear load :
atomic load : 3.3.0 [ConfigurationOfGlamour]
linear load : 3.1.3.Moose51 [ConfigurationOfGlamourCore]
--------------------List of Packages----------------
atomic load : 1.2.14.Moose51 [ConfigurationOfRubric]
load : Rubric-AndreiChis.207
load :
Glamour-Morphic-Renderer-AndreiChis.324
--------------------List of Packages----------------
linear load : 1.13 [ConfigurationOfRoassal2]
linear load : 3.1.4 [ConfigurationOfGlamourCore]
--------------------List of Packages----------------
With branching (old versions overwrites the fixes):
linear load :
atomic load : 3.3.0 [ConfigurationOfGlamour]
linear load : 3.1.3.Moose51 [ConfigurationOfGlamourCore]
--------------------List of Packages----------------
atomic load : 1.2.14.Moose51 [ConfigurationOfRubric]
load : Rubric-Moose51-usmanbhatti.207
load :
Glamour-Morphic-Renderer-Moose51-usmanbhatti.324
--------------------List of Packages----------------
linear load : 1.13 [ConfigurationOfRoassal2]
linear load : 3.1.4 [ConfigurationOfGlamourCore]
atomic load : 1.2.15 [ConfigurationOfRubric]
load : Rubric-AlainPlantec.206
load : Glamour-Morphic-Renderer-AndreiChis.321
--------------------List of Packages----------------
---------------
What it actually changes is packages with branch name are
overwritten with their predecessors and hence fixes are not
correctly included in the resulting image. It seems that ensuring
correct loading in the presence of branched packages requires no
other configuration is loading previous versions of the branched
packages.
While Thierry's comments (and my own) apply, I'd like to dive a
little deeper into this for a minute ... I would like to compare
the Metacello specs for Glamour-Morphic-Renderer in
ConfigurationOfGlamourCore (that resolves to
Glamour-Morphic-Renderer-Moose51-usmanbhatti.324) and the spec for
Glamour-Morphic-Renderer in ConfigurationOfRubric (that resolves
to Glamour-Morphic-Renderer-AndreiChis.321)...
I see that in Glamour-Morphic-Renderer-Moose51-usmanbhatti.324 the
version number (324 ... which btw is another convention:) is
greater than 321, so I do believe that if you had been using the
branch naming conventions Glamour-Morphic-Renderer-AndreiChis.321
would not have been loaded .... and I suppose we'll find out shortly:)
Yes, I really hope (and I'll test it shortly) that it is just a matter
of naming convention that results in undesired packages getting loaded.