Cami, Metacello has never been properly ported to Pharo2.0 and we don't need to rehash those issues again ...
I am working with Christophe to properly port Metacello to Pharo2.0 (we are down to about 8 failing tests so we are very close) ... Once this job is done, both Pharo2.0 and Pharo3.0 will be added to my travis ci lineup (I currently run ci builds for Metacello against 6 different versions of GemStone, 3 versions of Squeak and 4 versions of Pharo) ... Once Pharo2.0 and Pharo3.0 becomes part of the standard Metacello build lineup, I should be able to keep pace with you guys as you continue to push the boundaries of Smalltalk. Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Camillo Bruni" <[email protected]> | To: "Discusses Development of Pharo" <[email protected]> | Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:58:38 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Messy Configurations | | | On 2013-05-23, at 07:52, stephane ducasse <[email protected]> | wrote: | > On May 23, 2013, at 4:22 AM, Alexandre Bergel | > <[email protected]> wrote: | >>> What do you think? | >> | >> I think we should have a stable and strong Versionner. As soon as | >> making a software release is more than clicking one button, we | >> will end up with messy configurations. | > | > Yes christophe worked on porting travis to pharo because dale used | > it for his tests so that we can get the latest version of | > metacello | > in pharo. We do not do it for fun believe me. | | unless it runs in the current development version of Pharo I fear | that it will ever be used. | currently it only runs under 1.4 which is deprecated. If the current | development aims at 2.0 we will have the same situation.
