Cami, I will look into this a bit and put together a straw man proposal for what it would look like and you guys can refine that into something you can use ...
Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Camillo Bruni" <camillobr...@gmail.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:57:47 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Metacello configuration conventions | | | On 2013-04-18, at 18:47, Dale Henrichs <dhenr...@vmware.com> wrote: | | > | > | > ----- 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... | | yes indeed with the global gem server they have a nice central unit which we | do not have right now. But Christophe and Erwann are working on a first step | towards such a thing for Pharo: | - completely automated configuration validation | - completely automated tests for loaded configurations | | But for the version range, I think having that in Metacello would already | give | very fine-grained control over dependencies. Additionally it would actually | give | real meaning to the version numbers. |
