Hi, On 20 Jan 2011, at 10:11, Norbert Hartl wrote:
> > On 19.01.2011, at 20:54, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> But now if the server of lukas is eaten by monsters during the night or if >> you don't have your cool distributions containing all the nice >> packages of the version you want to load you are toasted. Simple just >> toasted. >> So when I program with pharo 1.1 I just want to get the work done and load >> the components loading in pharo1.1 so I open the repositoryOfTheDsitibution >> and I load the tools I need. >> >> If I need something more advanced I decide to go in the project and check if >> I can load the version may be developed on 1.2, 1,3 in my version. >> Or I change and switch to that distribution. >> >> So the act of publishing a configuration should not be just a copy this is a >> publication for inclusion in distribution. >> > If it is not just a copy what else is implied? As Stef mentioned, there are two things to do: - copy the actual packages into a different repository - change the references to Monticello repositories from the Configurations (this should be applied both to packages and to nested configurations) Cheers, Doru > Norbert > >> >>> >>>> 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... >>> >>> Agreed! >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Dale Henrichs <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[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 are out-of-date configurations in MetacelloRepository, a new version 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]> >>>> <mailto:[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]> >>>> <mailto:[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]> >>>> <mailto:[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> >>>> <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> >>>> <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, >>>>> you will end up with a messy haircut." >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "When people care, great things can happen."
