Am 28.05.2014 um 10:08 schrieb kilon alios <[email protected]>: > Well I am a big fan of github and git myself. Though I also love smalltalkhub > , so far I had no serious issues with it apart from the site going down at > times and not being able to browser new projects. > > The thing with public access is that you don't worry about it unless a > problem occurs. Which saves time and is less demanding on the maintenance > side. I will have to agree that github repo with pull requests would be > ideal. None the less , things look that are moving towards a better direction > :) > You can have public access in each individual project. I’m just saying that the configuration of a project is only copied to _the_ pharo software catalog if it isn’t broken. So while everyone has public access to a project and there is an automatic build on a CI the configuration will be arrive in the meta repo sooner or later. No one has to do anything. If public access would the best way to go pull requests wouldn’t be so prominent. It is a solution to let people easily participate without having access to a repository.
Norbert > You just remind me to give gitfiletree another try. > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]> wrote: > There haven’t as far as I know. But "I trust everyone. It's the devil inside > them I don't trust”. I really like the workflow that emerged from git and > github. If one wants to contribute, he forks project, makes changes and > submits a pull request. Then you analyse changes made and either merge them > into the project, or not (also pull request can be priorly checked by CI and > so on). Now if you have have something completely “open” it means that you > trust all the world, and I would say that it’s not a good thing to do. Yes, > inbox is not Pharo repository. But still. > > Uko > > > On 28 May 2014, at 09:37, kilon alios <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I dont see a big problem not having MetaRepoForPharo4 as public access , its >> not as if anyone will plant a pharo virus anytime soon and if a mistake is >> done, its not the end of the world , people can fix it if they find so >> annoying. Have there been any major issues so far with public access ? >> >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 28 May 2014, at 09:20, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >> Am 28.05.2014 um 08:47 schrieb Marcus Denker <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 28 May 2014, at 03:17, Gabriel Cotelli <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> is the Meta Repo for Pharo 4 ready to use? >> >>> >> >>> I've configured my jobs in the contribution ci server to run also for >> >>> Pharo 4. But I can't copy the configuration to the meta repo for Pharo 4 >> >>> to make it available in the Configuration Browser. >> >>> Maybe some permissions are missing? >> >>> >> >> >> >> Yes, public write access was missing… I added that for now, but of course >> >> the question is: do we really want it to be writable by everyone? >> > >> > No! And I would also want only configs to be put into the meta repo that >> > build green. So basically only the pharo contributions CI should upload >> > configs. But I can see that this might be too much effort and restriction. >> > >> > Norbert >> >> We just need a better infrastructure. Look at ATOM project. 1) contributions >> are made with pull requests 2) they have a dedicated apm tool for package >> submission/management. With monticello we’ve achieved the best we can. And I >> guess we don’t have enough resources to build and maintain new tools. >> >> Uko >> > >
