I for sure can. So, this is gone in 3.0 and if I do the "magic trick" you showed us during the Hangout, all we be fine, right?
--- Philippe Back Dramatic Performance Improvements Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027 Mail:[email protected] | Web: http://philippeback.eu Blog: http://philippeback.be | Twitter: @philippeback Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/philippeback/videos High Octane SPRL rue cour Boisacq 101 | 1301 Bierges | Belgium Pharo Consortium Member - http://consortium.pharo.org/ Featured on the Software Process and Measurement Cast - http://spamcast.libsyn.com Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and Ability Engineering EADocX Value Added Reseller On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>wrote: > yes. Also the name repetition is a) very improbably anyway and 2) nobody > cares (or at lease, MC does not cares) > > the only problem that could happen is in the remote case where you could > want to join repositories previously separated. > We think we can live with that potential problem :) > > Esteban > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 6:32 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > We were fed up about that and we made sure that we can work off line > (and not checking all the repositories on earth) in 3.0 with esteban > > > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Yes, that is what Monticello does on a save: check for potential name > conflicts in all linked repositories. It is just the way it is. It is not a > 100% foolproof way to guarantee uniqueness, but it will help in certain > cases. > >> > >> We once thought about making this check optional (and a setting). > >> > >> One way out might be to remove all but the package-cache from the > repositories linked to your package, but I haven't tried. > >> > >> On 03 Oct 2013, at 15:58, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Monticello goes fetching a unique number in the previous version of a > given package on Smallatkhub and that means requiring network access. > >>> > >>> Why is it so? > >>> > >>> I was working without network access and this bite me. > >>> > >>> I was able to get out of trouble with my Phone as an access point. > >>> > >>> But for some scenarios (w/ security and no external network access) > this is really a pain. > >>> > >>> Also, the fact that I had to do a Cmd-. to get out of this is > annyoying. > >>> > >>> Clues? > >>> > >>> Phil > >> > >> > > > > > > >
