On 27 June 2013 15:43, Dale K. Henrichs <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > | From: "Igor Stasenko" <[email protected]> > | To: "Pharo Development List" <[email protected]> > | Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:26:14 AM > | Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Metacello doubt > | > | Just adding some comments: > | - i avoid using loading bleeding edge > | because it has problems which only humans can solve: > | - if there are two different branches, not yet merged it may load > | not one that you want > | - even if dependencies is ok, it doesn't means that if you load two > | latest versions of two packages, > | they will work > | > | so, what i do, is loading a known working config, and then go to > | monticello and manually picking and loading updated packages. > | > > But once the human has solved the problem, the solution should be encoded in > a script that can be used by others to solve the same problem ... > > It's the manual bits that I'm trying to address with the Scripting API ... if > you know you want to deviate from the standard load directives, you should be > able to construct a load expression that allows you to specify your > deviations so you can do your next build without requiring manual > intervention... >
Well, the "bleeding edge" called this way exactly for reasons that it is unsafe/unpredictable and hardly formalizeable. I don't see what can be done there: trying to predict a developer's next move is not something you can do with software :) As i said, if there at least two persons working on project , each in his own branch, a term "bleeding edge" will mean something different for each of them. Only when one person takes an effort to merge and update config, you'll have new development version, but before that, if they will commit often without merging, the bleeding edge will jump between one branch and another, and i do not see how that can be useful to anyone. > Dale -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
