Lex, I don't think that would be a good idea. The fact is that the name is not guaranteed to be unique. It is quite possible to create two different versions with the same name including the initials and version number. In fact I've simply been assuming that the 'two copies' of these versions are in practice identical in the changes they make, but may not in fact be the case.
Ken On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 17:31 -0400, Lex Spoon wrote: > Ken Causey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well, isn't this fun. ;) > > > > I tried this and all was going well until I got the very same complaint > > 'Could not find version...' for Etoys-edc.23. Etoys-edc.25 has an > > ancester Etoys-edc.23 with a different UUID than the copy in the > > repository... same story. > > Well, they are supposed to be "universally unique", right? So the > more uniqueness, the better! > > Seriously, it sounds like Monticello would be better off using the > name of the package as the identifier, instead of a generated random > number or whatever it uses. In this case, "Etoys" would seem to make > a great identifier. > > Maybe it is not even too late. Could the tools simply detect that the > packages are using generated uuid's, and then guess a "uuid" by > looking at the filename? E.g., for a file named "Etoys-edc.23", > quietly treating the uuid as "Etoys"? > > > > -Lex
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ V3dot10 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/v3dot10
