[Cuis] Thoughts on workflow

[H. Hirzel]

Is it correct to say that change sets (*.cs.st) are only for changes
related to core classes whereas all the other development should go to
packages (*.pck.st) files?

--Hannes

On 12/31/12, Casey Ransberger <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> Below.
>
> On Dec 30, 2012, at 6:20 PM, Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Casey,
>>
>> Casey Ransberger wrote:
>>> Not saving the image totally makes sense when working on a shared
>>> artifact, but it doesn't suit my solo development style. Sometimes I work
>>> on things for a long time before sharing them, and being able to keep my
>>> work context alive is one of the reasons I love working with Smalltalk.
>>
>> I understand. I want to support that style too.
>>
>>> The warning every time I make a change to a method or class that's *not*
>>> a core part of Cuis seems a little bit much to me. Here's a thought: why
>>> not keep a #(registry of classes) which belong to the core, and warn
>>> about a save only in that case? I love being able to use git, but I'm not
>>> super sure I like being forced into it all the time:/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Casey Ransberger
>>
>> Ok. I guess you refer to the warnings you get when you save the image,
>> right? I guess you're ok with the warnings when quitting without saving,
>> as they prevent you from the need to go to the .changes log file to
>> recover your work.
>>
>> When saving the image, you get a warning about unsaved packages and
>> another one about unsaved changes to Cuis core (i.e. changes that don't
>> belong in any package). Their purpose is _not_ to force you to use Git,
>> just to remind you that saving them is good practice...
>>
>> The warning about changes that don't belong in a package is perhaps the
>> most important. Those change sets are zapped at image save, so you might
>> forget about them, and maybe never publish them, or save them to be loaded
>> on another image...
>>
>> The warning about unsaved packages is less important: you can save the
>> packages on next image start, or anytime you prefer. For this warning, a
>> possible solution would be to ask if to suppress it in the future. Or we
>> can even remove it, after all, it is important when you quit _without_
>> save.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Forgive me if this is a bit daft, but why do the change sets have to get
> zapped on save? It seems like I'd want to keep them going until I was ready
> to commit them. Part of the problem, I think, is that I'm not completely
> understanding what motivates some of the design decisions involved.
>
> Casey
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>