Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Ben Coman]

I found this useful to clarify my understanding of git...
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v1/Git-Internals

cheers -ben

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Tim Mackinnon  wrote:

> So I’m still puzzled why what I have said is incorrect - tag on master,
> update your repository url to include that tag with “:tagname” and then
> users will get that stable version when they load your baseline (vs.
> Leaving it off and they get whatever you might have in progress on master.
> And sure - you might develop on a branch and get it all perfect first and
> then merge to master - but I still think it is good idea to tag the point
> you are happy with and then update your baselineOf again?)
>
> Peter seems to be implying there is a different (better?) way to do this -
> and I’m wondering if I’m missing something obvious or whether we are all
> saying the same thing (me rather badly it seems)
>
> Tim
>
> On 31 Jul 2017, at 10:18, Alistair Grant  wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Perhaps a different way of phrasing it that might help is that tags are
> global, not per branch.
>
> Checking out a commit, whether by id, tag, or Branch name implies the
> entire tree.
>
> Cheers,
> Alistair
>
>
> On 31 Jul. 2017 11:09 am, "Tim Mackinnon"  wrote:
>
> Hi Peter - I am confused now, I’ve always understood that git tags are
> used to mark important points in history. From the Git online manual - "
> Tagging
>
> Like most VCSs, Git has the ability to tag specific points in history as
> being important. Typically people use this functionality to mark release
> points (v1.0, and so on). In this section, you’ll learn how to list the
> available tags, how to create new tags, and what the different types of
> tags are.
> “
>
> So I’ve always understood that by putting a tag on a commit, I was getting
> a snapshot of the whole graph at that point in time? Thus - by specifying
> the “:tag name” on the baseline url, you were getting that version?
>
> Thinking a bit more, I guess if you want to to actually make some changes
> from that tag point - you do need to create a -b branch from it (otherwise
> you have a detached head right?) - is this what you are getting at?
>
> Or is there a more obvious thing I am missing that lets you point to a
> particular version in GIT? I appreciate your insight into this, as I think
> we all need to learn how to do this properly.
>
> Tim
>
> On 31 Jul 2017, at 08:17, Peter Uhnak  wrote:
>
> Nono, I don't think you fully understand git's versioning.
>
> To oversimplify: git's history is composed of commits and parental
> relationships between them. Nothing more, nothing less; it is just a
> directed acyclic graph.
>
> On top of this graph structure you have additional stuff like branches,
> which are just labels atteched to the commits, and also tags, which are
> also just labels.
>
> So when you tag a commit, it doesn't really matter what branch it was on,
> you've simply said that tag 1.0 points to a particular commit XX in the
> history; that commit could belong to master branch, or development branch,
> or any other branch (or no named branch at all, also known as detached
> head).
>
> In another words, your tag points to a commit only, and branches do not
> play any role in this whatsoever.
>
> Am I being clear? (I'm sipping my morning coffee so my brain is not fully
> operational yet ;) )
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Tim Mackinnon wrote:
>
> Peter - I meant it as a figurative example - on a master branch you can
> tag whenever you want right? And so you can point users to a specific tag
> on master so they have a stable point to load from (possibly while you
> merge a branch back to master and then update any documentation or config
> before retagging and updating a BaselineOf?
>
> This looks like what the AWS Smalltalk git repo has used as an example.
>
> Tim
>
> (Ps
> Apologies for the "rage" iOS autocorrect - apparently that's what Apple
> thinks tags is corrected to ;)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Jul 2017, at 16:35, Peter Uhnak  wrote:
>
>
> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a
> version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL
>
> https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/
>
>
> I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag
> name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or
> whatever would be the latest in master).
>
> (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id)
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Tim Mackinnon]

So I’m still puzzled why what I have said is incorrect - tag on master, update 
your repository url to include that tag with “:tagname” and then users will get 
that stable version when they load your baseline (vs. Leaving it off and they 
get whatever you might have in progress on master. And sure - you might develop 
on a branch and get it all perfect first and then merge to master - but I still 
think it is good idea to tag the point you are happy with and then update your 
baselineOf again?)

Peter seems to be implying there is a different (better?) way to do this - and 
I’m wondering if I’m missing something obvious or whether we are all saying the 
same thing (me rather badly it seems)

Tim

> On 31 Jul 2017, at 10:18, Alistair Grant  wrote:
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> Perhaps a different way of phrasing it that might help is that tags are 
> global, not per branch.
> 
> Checking out a commit, whether by id, tag, or Branch name implies the entire 
> tree.
> 
> Cheers,
> Alistair
> 
> 
> On 31 Jul. 2017 11:09 am, "Tim Mackinnon"  wrote:
> Hi Peter - I am confused now, I’ve always understood that git tags are used 
> to mark important points in history. From the Git online manual - "
> Tagging
> Like most VCSs, Git has the ability to tag specific points in history as 
> being important. Typically people use this functionality to mark release 
> points (v1.0, and so on). In this section, you’ll learn how to list the 
> available tags, how to create new tags, and what the different types of tags 
> are.
> 
> “
> 
> So I’ve always understood that by putting a tag on a commit, I was getting a 
> snapshot of the whole graph at that point in time? Thus - by specifying the 
> “:tag name” on the baseline url, you were getting that version?
> 
> Thinking a bit more, I guess if you want to to actually make some changes 
> from that tag point - you do need to create a -b branch from it (otherwise 
> you have a detached head right?) - is this what you are getting at?
> 
> Or is there a more obvious thing I am missing that lets you point to a 
> particular version in GIT? I appreciate your insight into this, as I think we 
> all need to learn how to do this properly.
> 
> Tim
> 
>> On 31 Jul 2017, at 08:17, Peter Uhnak > > wrote:
>> 
>> Nono, I don't think you fully understand git's versioning.
>> 
>> To oversimplify: git's history is composed of commits and parental 
>> relationships between them. Nothing more, nothing less; it is just a 
>> directed acyclic graph.
>> 
>> On top of this graph structure you have additional stuff like branches, 
>> which are just labels atteched to the commits, and also tags, which are also 
>> just labels.
>> 
>> So when you tag a commit, it doesn't really matter what branch it was on, 
>> you've simply said that tag 1.0 points to a particular commit XX in the 
>> history; that commit could belong to master branch, or development branch, 
>> or any other branch (or no named branch at all, also known as detached head).
>> 
>> In another words, your tag points to a commit only, and branches do not play 
>> any role in this whatsoever.
>> 
>> Am I being clear? (I'm sipping my morning coffee so my brain is not fully 
>> operational yet ;) )
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Tim Mackinnon wrote:
>>> Peter - I meant it as a figurative example - on a master branch you can tag 
>>> whenever you want right? And so you can point users to a specific tag on 
>>> master so they have a stable point to load from (possibly while you merge a 
>>> branch back to master and then update any documentation or config before 
>>> retagging and updating a BaselineOf?
>>> 
>>> This looks like what the AWS Smalltalk git repo has used as an example.
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> (Ps
>>> Apologies for the "rage" iOS autocorrect - apparently that's what Apple 
>>> thinks tags is corrected to ;)
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 30 Jul 2017, at 16:35, Peter Uhnak >> > wrote:
>>> 
> 
> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a 
> version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL
> 
>> https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/ 
>> 
 
 I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag 
 name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or 
 whatever would be the latest in master).
 
 (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id)
 
 Peter
 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Tim Mackinnon]

Hi Peter - I am confused now, I’ve always understood that git tags are used to 
mark important points in history. From the Git online manual - "
Tagging
Like most VCSs, Git has the ability to tag specific points in history as being 
important. Typically people use this functionality to mark release points 
(v1.0, and so on). In this section, you’ll learn how to list the available 
tags, how to create new tags, and what the different types of tags are.

“

So I’ve always understood that by putting a tag on a commit, I was getting a 
snapshot of the whole graph at that point in time? Thus - by specifying the 
“:tag name” on the baseline url, you were getting that version?

Thinking a bit more, I guess if you want to to actually make some changes from 
that tag point - you do need to create a -b branch from it (otherwise you have 
a detached head right?) - is this what you are getting at?

Or is there a more obvious thing I am missing that lets you point to a 
particular version in GIT? I appreciate your insight into this, as I think we 
all need to learn how to do this properly.

Tim

> On 31 Jul 2017, at 08:17, Peter Uhnak  wrote:
> 
> Nono, I don't think you fully understand git's versioning.
> 
> To oversimplify: git's history is composed of commits and parental 
> relationships between them. Nothing more, nothing less; it is just a directed 
> acyclic graph.
> 
> On top of this graph structure you have additional stuff like branches, which 
> are just labels atteched to the commits, and also tags, which are also just 
> labels.
> 
> So when you tag a commit, it doesn't really matter what branch it was on, 
> you've simply said that tag 1.0 points to a particular commit XX in the 
> history; that commit could belong to master branch, or development branch, or 
> any other branch (or no named branch at all, also known as detached head).
> 
> In another words, your tag points to a commit only, and branches do not play 
> any role in this whatsoever.
> 
> Am I being clear? (I'm sipping my morning coffee so my brain is not fully 
> operational yet ;) )
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Tim Mackinnon wrote:
>> Peter - I meant it as a figurative example - on a master branch you can tag 
>> whenever you want right? And so you can point users to a specific tag on 
>> master so they have a stable point to load from (possibly while you merge a 
>> branch back to master and then update any documentation or config before 
>> retagging and updating a BaselineOf?
>> 
>> This looks like what the AWS Smalltalk git repo has used as an example.
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> (Ps
>> Apologies for the "rage" iOS autocorrect - apparently that's what Apple 
>> thinks tags is corrected to ;)
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 30 Jul 2017, at 16:35, Peter Uhnak  wrote:
>> 
 
 If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a 
 version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL
 
> https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/
>>> 
>>> I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag 
>>> name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or 
>>> whatever would be the latest in master).
>>> 
>>> (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id)
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Peter Uhnak]

* you can have metadata-less filetree and metadata-full(?) filetree
* metadata are version information like the author name, versions of 
packages, parent versions, etc.
* metadata-less do not store such information as it is assumed that the 
information is stored elsewhere (e.g. in git history)
* gitfiletree is just a filetree format, which in addition performs git commits 
of the exported files via shell execution of Git executable
* gitfiletree can operate both in metadata, and metadata-less mode (the latter 
is preferable, otherwise you'll have an endless barrage of merge conflicts)
* iceberg is metadata-less filetree only, and performs git commits using libgit

So yes, the format is the same and you can even use gitfiletree and iceberg at 
the same time from e.g. different images.

Peter


On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:11:48PM -0300, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> Sorry to Norbert for hijacking this post, but I'd also like to move
> some of my projects to Github, I used Peter's scripts in the past, but
> one thing I don't understand is how to automatically convert a
> ConfigurationOf to a BaselineOf, and if this is really necessary.
> 
> Is the FileTree format, as used by filetree and gitfiletree MC repos,
> 100% compatible with the repository format of Iceberg? It seems so to
> me, but it's better to ask than be sorry.
> 
> Regards!
> 
> Esteban A. Maringolo
> 
> 
> 2017-07-30 11:35 GMT-03:00 Peter Uhnak :
> >>
> >> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a 
> >> version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL
> >>
> >> > https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/
> >>
> >
> > I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag 
> > name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or 
> > whatever would be the latest in master).
> >
> > (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id)
> >
> > Peter
> >
> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Peter Uhnak]

Nono, I don't think you fully understand git's versioning.

To oversimplify: git's history is composed of commits and parental 
relationships between them. Nothing more, nothing less; it is just a directed 
acyclic graph.

On top of this graph structure you have additional stuff like branches, which 
are just labels atteched to the commits, and also tags, which are also just 
labels.

So when you tag a commit, it doesn't really matter what branch it was on, 
you've simply said that tag 1.0 points to a particular commit XX in the 
history; that commit could belong to master branch, or development branch, or 
any other branch (or no named branch at all, also known as detached head).

In another words, your tag points to a commit only, and branches do not play 
any role in this whatsoever.

Am I being clear? (I'm sipping my morning coffee so my brain is not fully 
operational yet ;) )

Peter


On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Tim Mackinnon wrote:
> Peter - I meant it as a figurative example - on a master branch you can tag 
> whenever you want right? And so you can point users to a specific tag on 
> master so they have a stable point to load from (possibly while you merge a 
> branch back to master and then update any documentation or config before 
> retagging and updating a BaselineOf?
> 
> This looks like what the AWS Smalltalk git repo has used as an example.
> 
> Tim
> 
> (Ps
> Apologies for the "rage" iOS autocorrect - apparently that's what Apple 
> thinks tags is corrected to ;)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Jul 2017, at 16:35, Peter Uhnak  wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a 
> >> version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL
> >> 
> >>> https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/
> > 
> > I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag 
> > name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or 
> > whatever would be the latest in master).
> > 
> > (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id)
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> 
> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Tim Mackinnon]

Peter - I meant it as a figurative example - on a master branch you can tag 
whenever you want right? And so you can point users to a specific tag on master 
so they have a stable point to load from (possibly while you merge a branch 
back to master and then update any documentation or config before retagging and 
updating a BaselineOf?

This looks like what the AWS Smalltalk git repo has used as an example.

Tim

(Ps
Apologies for the "rage" iOS autocorrect - apparently that's what Apple thinks 
tags is corrected to ;)

Sent from my iPhone



Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Jul 2017, at 16:35, Peter Uhnak  wrote:

>> 
>> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a version 
>> number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL
>> 
>>> https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/
> 
> I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag name 
> makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or whatever 
> would be the latest in master).
> 
> (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id)
> 
> Peter
> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Esteban A. Maringolo]

Hi all

Sorry to Norbert for hijacking this post, but I'd also like to move
some of my projects to Github, I used Peter's scripts in the past, but
one thing I don't understand is how to automatically convert a
ConfigurationOf to a BaselineOf, and if this is really necessary.

Is the FileTree format, as used by filetree and gitfiletree MC repos,
100% compatible with the repository format of Iceberg? It seems so to
me, but it's better to ask than be sorry.

Regards!

Esteban A. Maringolo


2017-07-30 11:35 GMT-03:00 Peter Uhnak :
>>
>> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a version 
>> number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL
>>
>> > https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/
>>
>
> I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag name 
> makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or whatever 
> would be the latest in master).
>
> (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id)
>
> Peter
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Peter Uhnak]

> 
> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a version 
> number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL
> 
> > https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/
> 

I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag name 
makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or whatever 
would be the latest in master).

(as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id)

Peter

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Torsten Bergmann]

Hi Norbert,

I manage some of my projects already in GitHub. For example Tealight which is 
also in catalog.

Anything you have to do is 
1) to create a "tag" in git  (see 
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18216991/create-a-tag-in-github-repository),
 I name the tags with the according version number like 0.0.2 following 
semantic versioning (http://semver.org)
2) provide a ConfigurationOf (as you had in the past) where the "version" 
references the "git tag" with the same name
 a) also #stable has to point to the "version" as it was in the past
  optional:  b) the #development should point to the Baseline in the git branch 
that you typically use for development (this allows for loading of bleeding 
edge as before)
3) upload the Configuration to a MetaRepo as before to appear in catalog


Example:
===
 1) I have two tagged versions for Tealight on Git (0.0.1 and 0.0.2)
https://github.com/astares/Tealight/releases

 2) In my ConfigurationOfTealight (which I also manage in git) I reference the 
tag, for example in version 0.0.2 I reference the tag with the same name 
"github://astares/Tealight:0.0.2/repository":
See  
https://github.com/astares/Tealight/blob/master/repository/ConfigurationOfTealight.package/ConfigurationOfTealight.class/instance/v0_0_2..st

Side note: a) now you can use your #stable definition in the 
ConfigurationOf as before 
https://github.com/astares/Tealight/blob/master/repository/ConfigurationOfTealight.package/ConfigurationOfTealight.class/instance/stable..st
   b) Your #development definition should point to the master 
branch (or whatever the development branch is) 
   
  
https://github.com/astares/Tealight/blob/master/repository/ConfigurationOfTealight.package/ConfigurationOfTealight.class/instance/development..st
  
https://github.com/astares/Tealight/blob/master/repository/ConfigurationOfTealight.package/ConfigurationOfTealight.class/instance/dev..st

 3) 
http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo/MetaRepoForPharo60/packages/ConfigurationOfTealight

Iceberg is managed in a similar way (but is now included in the image and the 
catalog part is only for compatibility).

Hope this helps.

Thanks
Torsten


> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Juli 2017 um 14:13 Uhr
> Von: "Norbert Hartl" <norb...@hartl.name>
> An: "Pharo Dev" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github
>
> I don't know how. I must say that it is not clear to me what to do. Do I need 
> a configuration? Do I still need to put it in Metarepo?
> 
> Norbert
> 
> 
> > Am 28.07.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com>:
> > 
> > Hi norbert
> > 
> > did you update the catalog entry?
> > 
> > Stef
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote:
> >> In the spirit of git notification…I moved mustache to github.
> >> 
> >> https://github.com/noha/mustache
> >> 
> >> Enjoy!
> >> 
> >> Norbert
> >> 
> >> 
> 
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Tim Mackinnon]

If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a version 
number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL

> https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Jul 2017, at 14:59, Peter Uhnak  wrote:
> 
> ConfigurationOf still remains (for the time-being), however now you don't 
> have to specify what packages and their commits to load for each version.
> 
> Instead you point to a Baseline with a specific version.
> 
> E.g.
> 
> https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master/repository/ConfigurationOfIconFactory.package/ConfigurationOfIconFactory.class/instance
> 
> 
> the syntax for the repo is 'github:///: id or tag id>/'
> 
> (the branch is optional, and if ommitted the latest commit of the master 
> branch will be used)
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
>> In my projects I defined configuration with single stable which points to
>> baseline master:
>> 
>> stable: spec
>> .
>> spec for: #'pharo' version: 'master'
>> 
>> master: spec
>> 
>> spec for: #pharo do: [
>> spec
>> baseline: 'Mustache'
>> with: [ spec repository: 'github://noha/mustache' ];
>> import: 'Mustache' ]
>> 
>> And I am supposed that master will be always stable.
>> 
>> 2017-07-28 14:13 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl :
>> 
>>> I don't know how. I must say that it is not clear to me what to do. Do I
>>> need a configuration? Do I still need to put it in Metarepo?
>>> 
>>> Norbert
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 28.07.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Stephane Ducasse 
>>> wrote:
> In the spirit of git notification…I moved mustache to github.
> 
> https://github.com/noha/mustache
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> Norbert
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Peter Uhnak]

ConfigurationOf still remains (for the time-being), however now you don't have 
to specify what packages and their commits to load for each version.

Instead you point to a Baseline with a specific version.

E.g.

https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master/repository/ConfigurationOfIconFactory.package/ConfigurationOfIconFactory.class/instance


the syntax for the repo is 'github:///:/'

(the branch is optional, and if ommitted the latest commit of the master branch 
will be used)


Peter



On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
> In my projects I defined configuration with single stable which points to
> baseline master:
> 
> stable: spec
> .
> spec for: #'pharo' version: 'master'
> 
> master: spec
> 
> spec for: #pharo do: [
> spec
> baseline: 'Mustache'
> with: [ spec repository: 'github://noha/mustache' ];
> import: 'Mustache' ]
> 
> And I am supposed that master will be always stable.
> 
> 2017-07-28 14:13 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl :
> 
> > I don't know how. I must say that it is not clear to me what to do. Do I
> > need a configuration? Do I still need to put it in Metarepo?
> >
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> > > Am 28.07.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Stephane Ducasse  > >:
> > >
> > > Hi norbert
> > >
> > > did you update the catalog entry?
> > >
> > > Stef
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Norbert Hartl 
> > wrote:
> > >> In the spirit of git notification…I moved mustache to github.
> > >>
> > >> https://github.com/noha/mustache
> > >>
> > >> Enjoy!
> > >>
> > >> Norbert
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Denis Kudriashov]

In my projects I defined configuration with single stable which points to
baseline master:

stable: spec
.
spec for: #'pharo' version: 'master'

master: spec

spec for: #pharo do: [
spec
baseline: 'Mustache'
with: [ spec repository: 'github://noha/mustache' ];
import: 'Mustache' ]

And I am supposed that master will be always stable.

2017-07-28 14:13 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl :

> I don't know how. I must say that it is not clear to me what to do. Do I
> need a configuration? Do I still need to put it in Metarepo?
>
> Norbert
>
>
> > Am 28.07.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Stephane Ducasse  >:
> >
> > Hi norbert
> >
> > did you update the catalog entry?
> >
> > Stef
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Norbert Hartl 
> wrote:
> >> In the spirit of git notification…I moved mustache to github.
> >>
> >> https://github.com/noha/mustache
> >>
> >> Enjoy!
> >>
> >> Norbert
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Norbert Hartl]

I don't know how. I must say that it is not clear to me what to do. Do I need a 
configuration? Do I still need to put it in Metarepo?

Norbert


> Am 28.07.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Stephane Ducasse :
> 
> Hi norbert
> 
> did you update the catalog entry?
> 
> Stef
> 
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Norbert Hartl  wrote:
>> In the spirit of git notification…I moved mustache to github.
>> 
>> https://github.com/noha/mustache
>> 
>> Enjoy!
>> 
>> Norbert
>> 
>> 

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Stephane Ducasse]

Hi norbert

did you update the catalog entry?

Stef

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Norbert Hartl  wrote:
> In the spirit of git notification…I moved mustache to github.
>
> https://github.com/noha/mustache
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Norbert
>
>

[Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

[Norbert Hartl]

In the spirit of git notification…I moved mustache to github.

https://github.com/noha/mustache 

Enjoy!

Norbert