But that kind of duplication will lead to having always not up to date configurations...
Why not having something like a meta "configuration" (I'm not thinking in a metacello config, but maybe) that knows which are the current configurations and where to find them? And that config would let us build tools on top of it... On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that the a good working model is to store the ConfigurationOfXXX in > the project repository along with the project mcz files. > > When a new version is released the configuration should be copied to > MetacelloRepository for the Pharo and Squeak community. I have a GemSource > MetacelloRepository where I put copies of configurations that have been > ported to GemStone .... when a new version for GemStone is available. > > I would not recommend that configurations be removed from > MetacelloRepository as that could break existing configurations that expect > to find the configuration there. So if it is found that there are > out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version of the > configuration should be copied into MetacelloRepository. > > Now that Metacello is more established, I don't think that it is critical > to require that all configurations be copied to MetacelloRepository. > > It still is useful to have a sort of clearinghouse for configurations and > until a better solution comes along it serves that purpose. BTW, I think > Stef has plans to provide better solutions for Pharo... > > Dale > > > > On 01/19/2011 06:12 AM, laurent laffont wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> On 19.01.2011, at 14:30, laurent laffont wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Hartl <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> It depends where you look at. ConfigurationOfXMLSupport exists >>> in MetacelloRepository as well as in XMLSupport. The latter >>> one being the official one, the former one being very >>> outdated. My sugesstion would be to remove >>> ConfigurationOfXMLSupport from MetacelloRepository to lower >>> the confusion. >>> >>> >>> Personnally I always look in MetacelloRepository, this should be >>> the reference IMHO. >>> >>> Laurent, >> >> I think it is up to the maintainers where to put those files. And in >> the XMLSupport case the decision was made deliberately not to put it >> in MetacelloRepository but in XMLSupport. The only thing I want to >> avoid is having multiple different files floating around that are >> edited in an inconsistent way. >> >> >> I thought that all ConfigurationOfXXX working for Pharo should be put in >> MetacelloRepository so we have a central place to look at. >> >> But I may be wrong. Mariano ? Dale ? >> >> Laurent >> >> >> Norbert >> >> >>> Norbert >>> >>> On 19.01.2011, at 13:18, Tudor Girba wrote: >>> >>> > The last version 1.1.6 is marked as #release. >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > Doru >>> > >>> > >>> > On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:26, laurent laffont wrote: >>> > >>> >> I put ConfigurationOfXMLSupport version 1.0 because >>> blessing was #release. But I agree to change. >>> >> >>> >> Laurent >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Marcus Denker >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Indeed, this is a problem for Moose in general. We depend >>> on XMLSupport, but now we cannot update it in PharoDev. I >>> would also strongly support the idea of removing XMLSupport >>> from PharoDev. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> What would be important: we need the latest version in >>> Pharo 1.2... else how can we ever have a version where the >>> tests are green? >>> >> (not of XML, but in general) >>> >> >>> >> Marcus >>> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:32, Fabrizio Perin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I have a problem with the XMLSupport version from Pharo 1.2. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The problem is that I need to work with one of the last >>> version of XMLSupport but in the pharo image 1.2 is loaded an >>> old version of XMLSupport (I mean a version from Jan 2010). I >>> did try to load a newer version of XMLSupport using >>> ConfigurationOfXMLSupport but some errors make this operation >>> impossible. >>> >>>> So either Pharo-dev 1.2 load a newer (possibly the last) >>> version of XMLSupport by default or Pharo-dev 1.2 should not >>> load XMLSupport at all. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I think that doesn't make sense to use by default such an >>> old version, also considering that the last XMLSupport has >>> nice and useful features like the XMLPluggableElementFactory. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> By avoiding to load XMLSupport in Pharo-dev 1.2 by >>> default you let people free to use the version that they like. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Fabrizio >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de >>> <http://www.marcusdenker.de/> >>> >> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >>> >>> > >>> > "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, >>> > you will end up with a messy haircut." >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
