On 18 April 2012 17:19, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]> wrote: > Stef, > > What about stable relative to a given version of Pharo? I *really* think > that to be useful, Metacello needs to be consistent. As it is, one seems to > be left looking at blessings and guessing at what might work. The current > and occasional (and very helpful) "no, use THIS version..." is appreciated, > but hardly grounds for success.
"Stable version of foo relative to bar" means a having a ConfigurationOfFooForPharo13, ConfigurationOfFooForPharo14, ConfigurationOfFooForSqueak44, and so on. That people don't write these configurations is not a failing of Metacello. frank > Bill > > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] > [[email protected]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse > [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] gamedev.net post asking about Smalltalk > > No stable measn stable and this is good > Development means that you are developing and that people use at their own > risk > > Use stable to milestone. > This way clients can work on your stable versions and milestone too their > software. > > On Apr 16, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> yes, we need to invent some conventions. Because different developers >> using different names and different labels for configuration versions. >> for instance, i avoid labeling versions as #stable , most of them are >> #development.. >> for this reason, #lastVersion, #latestVersion loads either outdated >> stuff, or even worse, a baseline.. > > >
