2015-05-11 14:32 GMT+02:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]>:

> 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?
>

This does not solve one of my problems with configurations: the fact that
writing a version is complex (or require a versionner use and makes for
very long configurations in the end).

Baselines are a lot easier for that. They do not carry old versions in
their code, making them less susceptible of having a huge number of lines
of code to represent past versions (and rejected / truncated in future
pharo releases like it happened with package version history).

Thierry


>
> Uko
>
>
> On 11 May 2015, at 14:06, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-05-11 12:15 GMT+02:00 stepharo <[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
>>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at
>>> Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to