> From: stephane ducasse <[email protected]> > Date: December 3, 2009 8:27:27 PM GMT+01:00 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected], Related to the development of Moose > and other related tools <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: duplication between default: > and version40beta2:? > > > apparently we had a differetn definition of map. > my point is that we need map with exact numbers of component to be able to > reload and build more. > Now I like the baseline idea. > > On Dec 3, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > >> >> In a Metacello context. >> >> The map of packages and their relationships is called a #baseline version. >> If one loads a #baseline version the latest version of each package is >> loaded. The "structure" is stable but loading a #baseline version is a risky >> proposition for everyone except project developers themselves who are >> prepared to address load-time conflicts/bugs. >> >> A #development version, imports structure from the #baseline, but a specific >> package version is supplied for each Monticello package or project. When a >> development version is loaded, the explicit list of package versions are >> loaded. IN a #development version, the package versions are not finalized >> and may change over time. When a #development version is saved, there is an >> presumption that some level of testing has gone on and that the package >> versions are expected to work together. One can go to a particular version >> of the package in which the configuration is saved and expect to load the >> same packages....However, the list of package versions will change over >> time. >> >> For all other 'released' versions, (beta, release, alpha, stable, etc.) it >> is expected that the list of package versions will never change - the code >> base may still be alpha, but it is a stable known point with respect to >> package versions. >> >> (BTW, I've added the metacello group to this cross-posted message:) >> >> Dale >> ----- "Stéphane Ducasse" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> | Still still still you can always have a map (a map of all the >> | components you loaded that they work or not). >> | This is orthogonal to a release or just publications. This is a >> | sofware artefact. I know that you know it. >> | The fact to have map is orthogonal of the choice latest or one >> | version. >> | I just write that for others following our discussion.... >> | >> | Stef >> | >> | >> | >> | On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> | >> | > Hi, >> | > >> | > Not every loading strategy have the same goal or the same context. >> | > >> | > Sub projects will be developed and published in their own context >> | > without taking into account the overall project. However, when >> | > maintaining the overall project, I want to be able to say "load >> | > latest" so that I can easily load everything and check whether >> | > everything still holds together. >> | > >> | > For overall release management, I do not want to rely on "load >> | > latest". Instead I will release a coherent version when I see that >> | it >> | > works. This will be a fixed set of packages with exact versions that >> | >> | > will work together. >> | > >> | > Cheers, >> | > Doru >> | > >> | > >> | > On 3 Dec 2009, at 14:21, Marcus Denker wrote: >> | > >> | >> >> | >> On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Laval Jannik wrote: >> | >> >> | >>> Yeh, >> | >>> >> | >>> Now, I understand the process... (I am slow :) ) >> | >>> >> | >>> But, in this process we must specify versions and maintain it. >> | >>> Is there a solution (in monticello maybe) to say a version of a >> | >>> package is stable. >> | >>> So in this case, we can say "I want last stable version of my >> | >>> package" and we do not need to maintain ConfigurationOf. >> | >>> >> | >> >> | >> The problem is that it's not one package... your system will be 20 >> | >> | >> packges. You can say " load the latest of all, that works". >> | >> But: now I want to load the version that worked so great last >> | month. >> | >> Which set of packages exactly where that? >> | >> >> | >> Tagging single packages as "release" will not help, as you don't >> | >> have the info which released package works with which other >> | >> released package. >> | >> >> | >> >> | >> Marcus >> | >> _______________________________________________ >> | >> Moose-dev mailing list >> | >> [email protected] >> | >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> | > >> | > -- >> | > www.tudorgirba.com >> | > >> | > "Obvious things are difficult to teach." >> | > >> | > >> | > >> | > >> | > _______________________________________________ >> | > Pharo-project mailing list >> | > [email protected] >> | > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> | >> | >> | _______________________________________________ >> | Pharo-project mailing list >> | [email protected] >> | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
