In the tutorial: - Put a little heading before
"You need to add pharo repository as a remote ([email protected]:pharo-project/pharo.git)." On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > I double clicked and it did a massive amount of stuff and finally told > me that it is up to date. > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Stephane Ducasse > <[email protected]> wrote: >> OK so I restarted everything from scratch: >> - deleted my fork >> - reforked >> - clone pharo again >> - here is some feedback >> >> In the tutorial add /pharo + src in the screenshot >> >> >> Then when I add the local repository I get uncommited changes and I do >> not understand why? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16 Dec 2017, at 09:42, Alistair Grant <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Esteban, >>> >>> On 16 December 2017 at 09:05, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 15 Dec 2017, at 17:37, Alistair Grant <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Esteban, >>> >>> I had no problems following the process (Ubuntu 16.04, >>> Pharo7.0-32bit-e175bc2.image, fogbugz 20872). :-) >>> >>> I guess that you have already thought of this, but... Is there any >>> reason why we can't just put up a dialog asking for the user's github >>> credentials and fogbugz issue number and then automatically clone the >>> repository, configure the upstream remote and create the issue branch. >>> That would remove most of the remaining manual steps. >>> >>> I realise that it only works for option 1, although where people >>> configure a common pharo-local, it could check for a pre-existing >>> clone and use that one. >>> >>> >>> "I realise” means you tried and it didn’t work? >>> because in my tests it worked as good as the first one (I tested on >>> windows), but that may need to be “re-validated” :) >>> >>> Esteban >>> >>> >>> The contribution process works fine (even on linux :-)). >>> >>> The "I realise" paragraph is a comment on my suggestion to try and >>> reduce the number of manual steps required (and is actually wrong). >>> Just to rephrase (and extend) the suggestion, I think we could create >>> a single dialog that currently covers the following steps (from your >>> instructions): >>> >>> 1. Clone a fresh repository, or point to an existing repository. >>> 2. Tell Iceberg about pharo-project >>> 3. Create a new branch from the fogbugz issue >>> >>> >>> ah, I got lost in translation ;) >>> >>> Esteban >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alistair >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Alistair >>> >>> On 14 December 2017 at 13:19, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I’m working on simplifying the contribution process, after collecting >>> opinions/experiences last couple of months. >>> As you know, Pharo contribution process is still WIP and we aim to have it >>> as smooth as possible for Pharo 7.0 release. Now, after observe the idea of >>> the “system repositories” was a bad idea because it introduced extra and non >>> standard “path” to contribution, I managed to remove that to reestablish >>> “the regular way”: you will now need to add pharo repository just as any >>> other repository you add, by cloning or adding local repository. >>> >>> I took Guille’s doc and moved it to pharo project (it does not has sense to >>> have it living in a contributor’s repository when is so important). You can >>> find it here: >>> >>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki/Contribute-a-fix-to-Pharo >>> >>> This document is also updated to reveal this new process, please read it. >>> >>> How to update your startup scripts? >>> Some people has added startup scripts to easy the first part of >>> contribution. Instead enabling system repositories, etc. you now need to >>> replace that with this: >>> >>> (IceRepositoryCreator new >>> location: '/path/to/pharo-project/pharo' asFileReference; >>> subdirectory: 'src'; >>> createRepository) >>> register >>> >>> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE… take a moment to read and try the document. Is very >>> important that document reflects new process and works reliable in different >>> scenarios (I validated it on macOS and Windows, and assumed it worked fine >>> on linux but you know… bad assumptions is the base of failure ;) ) >>> >>> I’m eager to hear your feedback and continue enhancing the process. >>> >>> (yes, Stef, I know UI is still cumbersome… I’m working on that :) ) >>> >>> cheers! >>> Esteban >>> >>>
