Hi torsten Yes it sounds good to have MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH/BUILDNUMBER scheme
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Torsten Bergmann <asta...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > reason is that for Pharo 7 currently an sha git hash is used in the file > name > instead of a (more clear) build number. > > See http://files.pharo.org/image/70/ > > This problem (which has more side effects on different sides, not only the > Launcher now) was discussed > already yesterday on Discord #iceberg channel with Esteban and Pavel. > > The current sha based image file name scheme is not only confusing but has > some downsides. > One can not easily remember the SHA or see which image is the latest, or > sort from recent > images to older in a folder. > > If I understood correctly the reason to (initially) choose sha's in the > image name has something > to do with Travis and a discussion between Pavel, Esteban and Guille. > > I would vote for using Build numbers again. > > We would have several BENEFITS when keeping/returning to build numbers for > Pharo 7: > - we do not change image file names, about box behavior, ... compared to > previous Pharo version < 7 > (as we used image build number already in the past) > - we tag each release as before and see it in Git (we can easily reproduce) > - the build number easily tells you which image is more recent (as before) > - we can easily sort when we have several images in a directory > - a build number is more readable and recognizable by a human (compared to > the shas) > - Pharo is not an "aliens" compared to the rest of the software world as > often software > follows a MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH/BUILDNUMBER scheme (see semver.org) > - we do not change the order in Launcher (higher numbers at the top to > download more recent) > > According to the discussion with Esteban and Pavel it is technically > possible to have build numbers again - > it means to tag each commit again with a build number (we already did this > for Pharo 6, > see https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/releases) > > The outcome from yesterday was that Pavel will discuss again with Guile on > that topic. It would be good if others > could comment on that topic too. Maybe we can return to the known build > number scheme > or (if there are problems with that) at least know the arguments why we need > to be exotic/different on > this corner in the future. > > Thanks > T. > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 03. August 2017 um 15:41 Uhr > Von: "Ben Coman" <b...@openinworld.com> > An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> > Betreff: [Pharo-dev] PharoLauncher - uninformative Pharo7 template names > > Attached is what I see for Pharo 7 images in PharoLauncher. > I presume the top one is the latest, but Its a bit hard to tell :P > Anyone else seeing this? > > Loading ConfigurationOfPharoLauncher-ChristopheDemarey.53 (latest) > and doing "ConfigurationOfPharoLauncher loadDevelopment" > which loads PharoLauncher-Core-ChristopheDemarey.116 (latest) > > This is with Pharo builds 60486 and 60510, and same VM for both... > Win32 built on May 31 2017 03:09:04 GMT Compiler: 5.4.0 VMMaker > versionString VM: 201705310241 > CoInterpreter VMMaker.oscog-eem.2231 uuid: > de62947a-7f40-4977-a232-e06a3a80c939 May 31 2017 > > (but btw, does that look strange? The 60510 image was lauched from the > original 60486-PharoLauncher which said it was downloading the matching VM, > so I kind of expect each image to have a different VM ?? ) > > cheers -ben
