Can’t we have configuration server pointing to the configurations of the projects in the repos and getting all supported versions of pharo out of them instead of having a dedicated repo for each pharo version?
Uko > On 11 May 2015, at 14:06, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2015-05-11 12:15 GMT+02:00 stepharo <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > 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 > > <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. > > > > >
