Dale
I was discussing with christophe yesterday and what would be good in metacello
is to be able to have in one version of the configurationOf
all the information about previous heads stable versions because right now to
get this information
we need to load previous versions until we see that the stable or development
deifnitino changes.
I will start to add to my configurations
previousVersions
^ #((stable 20 #(1.0 1.2 1.3))
(stable 1.4 #(1.0 ))
so that we can perform regression testing and not just test the latest stable
version.
Stef
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Camillo Bruni" <camillobr...@gmail.com>
> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> | Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:19:57 PM
> | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Metacello configuration conventions
> |
> | I liked ruby-gems approach more than the one in Metacello. You usually
> | specify
> | a major version (as under linux) for your dependency. That means the
> | dependency
> | might evolve a bit, typically for bugfixes, without you having to update
> | the configuration manually.
> |
> | http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/16 for me is what I'd like to see.
> |
> | As you say, #stable and #development are mostly for humans.
>
> Cami,
>
> I did look at the way ruby-gems worked pretty early on in Metacello
> development and I've arranged things such that I should be able to add the
> ability to specify ranges of versions, but the whole mechanics of the
> ruby-gem universe is different than the smalltalk universe so I'm not sure
> that Metacello would give you the behavior you are looking for even I did
> allow version ranges to be specified ...
>
> I'd be willing to spend time working through use cases with you to see if
> there would be benefit for enabling that feature...
>
> Dale
>
