But how come saving a slice in the beginning also saves the dependents? I thought it acted like a package.
Wouldn't this be a bug then? It is certainly bug-inducing. On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 17 May 2016, at 08:01, Clément Bera <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well I tried that and sometimes the integrator can't integrate because > of a "Missing ancestor". > > You have to copy all dependents as well, a slice is just an empty holder. > But I guess you already know. > > > I guess I will do what you say for my bugs and when the problem arises > again I will ask again with a concrete example. > > > > Nvm > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Peter Uhnák <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is there a problem in simply adding Inbox50 repo and clicking on the > "Copy" button to put it to Inbox60? Or am I missing something? > > > > Peter > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Clément Bera <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have a problem in several bugs I opened on the bug tracker. When I > opened them, Pharo 6 development has not started, so the slices were > committed in the Pharo 5 inbox. As Pharo 5 was in stabilization phasis for > release, my slices were not integrated but postponed to Pharo 6 (which I > understand and accept). But since now the development is in Pharo 6, the > monkey checks the slice in Pharo 6 inbox and can't find my slices because > they are in Pharo 5 inbox. See for example 18039 or 17451. > > > > What is the right way to move the slices from Pharo 5 inbox to Pharo 6 > inbox ? I don't want to end up in a situation where it is not possible to > integrate my slice because of a "Missing ancestor", so how can I move the > slices from Pharo 5 inbox to Pharo 6 inbox without having that problem ? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > >
