2015-05-11 12:15 GMT+02:00 stepharo <steph...@free.fr>: > Yes this is important we should think modularly. >
This is one of my issues when dealing with configurations: the need to copy them in many different places (the MetaRepo for each supported pharo version, the Smalltalkhub repo for the project, github, etc....). Now, I write a configuration once and for all, and that configuration delegates to baselines which are hosted in branch or version specific repositories (one repo if github, multiple repositories if smalltalkhub). Metacello/Git inspired workflow ;) Thierry > > > Le 10/5/15 18:45, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > > For example, Soup's config was updated to declare a stable version for >> 4.0. >> It was committed to MetaRepoForPharo40, but not to PharoExtras/Soup. It >> was >> confusing that loading from the config browser worked, but loading via >> another config as a dependent project did not (since we use the canonical >> repo in that use case). >> >> Specifically, I am asking that if we update a config, and it's not Pharo >> xyz-specific (i.e. may break other platforms), that we commit back to the >> canonical repo or notify the maintainer if we don't have repo access. This >> policy would obviously be especially easy for any project owned by the >> Pharo >> team. >> >> Thanks :) >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Request-Feed-MetaRepoForXyz-Configs-Back-to-Projects-tp4825563.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> >> > >
