Re: [Pharo-users] Help contributing a fix to pharo - docs seem out of date again?

[Tim Mackinnon]

Ah - I didn’t think to look in the repair menu, now I see what you guys are 
talking about - the nomenclature threw me (maybe that’s ok if its there).

Tim

> On 19 Jun 2018, at 17:40, Guillermo Polito  > wrote:
> 
> Ok, I confirm. Actually I think that never worked. The create branch option 
> is only available from the repair action.
> 
> I've opened an issue:
> 
> https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/issues/871 
> 
> 
> I think it would be nice to show all valid options (including the ones in the 
> repair button) in the context menu too, for experienced users that want to 
> avoid an extra click.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:57 PM Guillermo Polito  > wrote:
> Ah! Yes, in the Pharo plugin you have just that option.
> What we were saying with Esteban is that if you go to the *Repair* and then 
> *Create new Branch* you should have it.
> 
> But in the main menu you don't have a "Checkout branch" option?
> That's then maybe a bug, I'll check.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tim Mackinnon  > wrote:
> Hi guys - I got build 1072 using Pharo Launcher (I like to know what build 
> I’m using - but maybe I should pick stable and just date stamp my image?)
> 
> Anyway just tried the latest 1077 and followed the steps I described 
> (although using my caught up branch)  - when I right click on the detached 
> pharo  - there is the Pharo menu item and inside that there is only the 
> option to create a new branch for an issue?
> 
> Am I missing something (or is this something recently broken?)
> 
> Tim
> 
>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:35, Guillermo Polito > > wrote:
>> 
>> Strange... I'm with Esteban there, I'd need more information to reproduce it.
>> I've just done
>> 
>> $ wget -O - get.pharo.org/70+vm  | bash
>> $ ./pharo-ui Pharo.image
>> 
>> - Open iceberg
>> - Repair Pharo by cloning my (really out of date) fork (guillep/pharo)
>> - Fetch
>> - Repair -> Create branch
>> 
>> And I have the "New branch" option.
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:28 PM Esteban Lorenzano > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 15:18, Tim Mackinnon >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Guillermo - it sounds like I’m on the right track - the only thing that 
>>> caught me out was in the latest V7 there is no “new branch” - I have to 
>>> have an issue number? The picture in your doc shows both possibilities?
>> 
>> how did you arrive there?
>> seems to me that there should always be the opportunity of just branch. If 
>> not, may be there is an error.
>> 
>> Esteban
>> 
>>> 
>>> For now, I found a bug and created an issue, and so can experiment with 
>>> that - but I think it is handy to create a generic branch so that you can 
>>> experiment (while easily tracking your changes)?
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
 On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:01, Guillermo Polito >>> > wrote:
 
 Hi,
 
 On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM Tim Mackinnon >>> > wrote:
 Hi - a few weeks ago, I contributed a tiny fix to Pharo 7 -and the 
 instructions seemed to work really well.
 
 I’ve since come back to try and do some more over lunch (I was thinking 
 I’d like to dig out the changes I worked out for using the AST and cursor 
 to make senders/implements work properly and not just use the selected 
 text).
 
 My first problem was that my fork of Pharo from many months ago was out of 
 date - I think the instructions on 
 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki/Contribute-a-fix-to-Pharo 
  
 should probably mention this subtlety.
 
 It took me ages to figure out what to do - this was the clue 
 (https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/ 
 ) - and of particular 
 note the the tiny bit at the bottom to ensure you Push your changes back 
 to your GitHub fork (I slightly complicated myself by using IntelliJ to do 
 this - doable but you need to be aware of whats going on). I did this in a 
 separate non-pharo directory (I think thats what you would recommend 
 right? Then you can keep updating it from time to time?)
 
 Usually, you don't care. You don't need to update your fork :)
 You only need to:
  - clone/locate your repository in disk
  - fetch (this will find your commit in the pharo repository)
  - create a new branch X
  - push branch X to your fork
  - make a pull request
 
 The contribution process never goes through master nor development, so it 
 does not really matter if they are updated.
 And that's what I was showing in my videos because there is nothing else 
 to it :)
  
 

Re: [Pharo-users] Help contributing a fix to pharo - docs seem out of date again?

[Guillermo Polito]

Ok, I confirm. Actually I think that never worked. The create branch option
is only available from the repair action.

I've opened an issue:

https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/issues/871

I think it would be nice to show all valid options (including the ones in
the repair button) in the context menu too, for experienced users that want
to avoid an extra click.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:57 PM Guillermo Polito 
wrote:

> Ah! Yes, in the Pharo plugin you have just that option.
> What we were saying with Esteban is that if you go to the *Repair* and
> then *Create new Branch* you should have it.
>
> But in the main menu you don't have a "Checkout branch" option?
> That's then maybe a bug, I'll check.
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tim Mackinnon  wrote:
>
>> Hi guys - I got build 1072 using Pharo Launcher (I like to know what
>> build I’m using - but maybe I should pick stable and just date stamp my
>> image?)
>>
>> Anyway just tried the latest 1077 and followed the steps I described
>> (although using my caught up branch)  - when I right click on the detached
>> pharo  - there is the Pharo menu item and inside that there is only the
>> option to create a new branch for an issue?
>>
>> Am I missing something (or is this something recently broken?)
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:35, Guillermo Polito 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Strange... I'm with Esteban there, I'd need more information to reproduce
>> it.
>> I've just done
>>
>> $ wget -O - get.pharo.org/70+vm | bash
>> $ ./pharo-ui Pharo.image
>>
>> - Open iceberg
>> - Repair Pharo by cloning my (really out of date) fork (guillep/pharo)
>> - Fetch
>> - Repair -> Create branch
>>
>> And I have the "New branch" option.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:28 PM Esteban Lorenzano 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 15:18, Tim Mackinnon  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Guillermo - it sounds like I’m on the right track - the only thing
>>> that caught me out was in the latest V7 there is no “new branch” - I have
>>> to have an issue number? The picture in your doc shows both possibilities?
>>>
>>>
>>> how did you arrive there?
>>> seems to me that there should always be the opportunity of just branch.
>>> If not, may be there is an error.
>>>
>>> Esteban
>>>
>>>
>>> For now, I found a bug and created an issue, and so can experiment with
>>> that - but I think it is handy to create a generic branch so that you can
>>> experiment (while easily tracking your changes)?
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:01, Guillermo Polito 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM Tim Mackinnon  wrote:
>>>
 Hi - a few weeks ago, I contributed a tiny fix to Pharo 7 -and the
 instructions seemed to work really well.

 I’ve since come back to try and do some more over lunch (I was thinking
 I’d like to dig out the changes I worked out for using the AST and cursor
 to make senders/implements work properly and not just use the selected
 text).

 My first problem was that my fork of Pharo from many months ago was out
 of date - I think the instructions on
 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki/Contribute-a-fix-to-Pharo 
 should
 probably mention this subtlety.

>>>
 It took me ages to figure out what to do - this was the clue (
 https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/) - and of particular
 note the the tiny bit at the bottom to ensure you Push your changes back to
 your GitHub fork (I slightly complicated myself by using IntelliJ to do
 this - doable but you need to be aware of whats going on). I did this in a
 separate non-pharo directory (I think thats what you would recommend right?
 Then you can keep updating it from time to time?)

>>>
>>> Usually, you don't care. You don't need to update your fork :)
>>> You only need to:
>>>  - clone/locate your repository in disk
>>>  - fetch (this will find your commit in the pharo repository)
>>>  - create a new branch X
>>>  - push branch X to your fork
>>>  - make a pull request
>>>
>>> The contribution process never goes through master nor development, so
>>> it does not really matter if they are updated.
>>> And that's what I was showing in my videos because there is nothing else
>>> to it :)
>>>
>>>

 Having got my GitHub fork caught up with pharo/development - I then
 have the Local Repo Missing error (expected) - and now when I go to repair
 it I can either clone again (which is the instructions online) - or “Locate
 this repository in your file system”. As I’ve had to already check
 everything out to catch up to pharo/dev I chose to locate.

 I then get a Fetch require msg (expected)

 I then choose to use Fetch (I’m not sure what the Repair repository
 picture is now about?) - the text does mention I will become detached, so
 I’ve stuck to that

 I’m not sure why the “solving a detached working copy” is further down
 the page - but I’ve jumped to that

Re: [Pharo-users] Help contributing a fix to pharo - docs seem out of date again?

[Guillermo Polito]

Ah! Yes, in the Pharo plugin you have just that option.
What we were saying with Esteban is that if you go to the *Repair* and then
*Create new Branch* you should have it.

But in the main menu you don't have a "Checkout branch" option?
That's then maybe a bug, I'll check.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tim Mackinnon  wrote:

> Hi guys - I got build 1072 using Pharo Launcher (I like to know what build
> I’m using - but maybe I should pick stable and just date stamp my image?)
>
> Anyway just tried the latest 1077 and followed the steps I described
> (although using my caught up branch)  - when I right click on the detached
> pharo  - there is the Pharo menu item and inside that there is only the
> option to create a new branch for an issue?
>
> Am I missing something (or is this something recently broken?)
>
> Tim
>
> On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:35, Guillermo Polito 
> wrote:
>
> Strange... I'm with Esteban there, I'd need more information to reproduce
> it.
> I've just done
>
> $ wget -O - get.pharo.org/70+vm | bash
> $ ./pharo-ui Pharo.image
>
> - Open iceberg
> - Repair Pharo by cloning my (really out of date) fork (guillep/pharo)
> - Fetch
> - Repair -> Create branch
>
> And I have the "New branch" option.
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:28 PM Esteban Lorenzano 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 15:18, Tim Mackinnon  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Guillermo - it sounds like I’m on the right track - the only thing
>> that caught me out was in the latest V7 there is no “new branch” - I have
>> to have an issue number? The picture in your doc shows both possibilities?
>>
>>
>> how did you arrive there?
>> seems to me that there should always be the opportunity of just branch.
>> If not, may be there is an error.
>>
>> Esteban
>>
>>
>> For now, I found a bug and created an issue, and so can experiment with
>> that - but I think it is handy to create a generic branch so that you can
>> experiment (while easily tracking your changes)?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:01, Guillermo Polito 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM Tim Mackinnon  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi - a few weeks ago, I contributed a tiny fix to Pharo 7 -and the
>>> instructions seemed to work really well.
>>>
>>> I’ve since come back to try and do some more over lunch (I was thinking
>>> I’d like to dig out the changes I worked out for using the AST and cursor
>>> to make senders/implements work properly and not just use the selected
>>> text).
>>>
>>> My first problem was that my fork of Pharo from many months ago was out
>>> of date - I think the instructions on
>>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki/Contribute-a-fix-to-Pharo should
>>> probably mention this subtlety.
>>>
>>
>>> It took me ages to figure out what to do - this was the clue (
>>> https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/) - and of particular
>>> note the the tiny bit at the bottom to ensure you Push your changes back to
>>> your GitHub fork (I slightly complicated myself by using IntelliJ to do
>>> this - doable but you need to be aware of whats going on). I did this in a
>>> separate non-pharo directory (I think thats what you would recommend right?
>>> Then you can keep updating it from time to time?)
>>>
>>
>> Usually, you don't care. You don't need to update your fork :)
>> You only need to:
>>  - clone/locate your repository in disk
>>  - fetch (this will find your commit in the pharo repository)
>>  - create a new branch X
>>  - push branch X to your fork
>>  - make a pull request
>>
>> The contribution process never goes through master nor development, so it
>> does not really matter if they are updated.
>> And that's what I was showing in my videos because there is nothing else
>> to it :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Having got my GitHub fork caught up with pharo/development - I then have
>>> the Local Repo Missing error (expected) - and now when I go to repair it I
>>> can either clone again (which is the instructions online) - or “Locate this
>>> repository in your file system”. As I’ve had to already check everything
>>> out to catch up to pharo/dev I chose to locate.
>>>
>>> I then get a Fetch require msg (expected)
>>>
>>> I then choose to use Fetch (I’m not sure what the Repair repository
>>> picture is now about?) - the text does mention I will become detached, so
>>> I’ve stuck to that
>>>
>>> I’m not sure why the “solving a detached working copy” is further down
>>> the page - but I’ve jumped to that
>>>
>>> It says I need to synchronise both (image and repo) - but then says its
>>> easier to do a branch - and then says a nice alternative is to create a
>>> temp branch like temp/synch - however I can’t see how to do that as there
>>> is only Crete new Branch from Issue now (the picture shows that plus New
>>> Branch).
>>>
>>
>> I don't see what's the problem, maybe the UI can be enhanced to be more
>> explicit.
>> But you can just select "New branch" and create a branch with any name.
>>
>> I'll go a bit deeper here:
>>  - you just downloaded a new image 

Re: [Pharo-users] Help contributing a fix to pharo - docs seem out of date again?

[Tim Mackinnon]

Hi guys - I got build 1072 using Pharo Launcher (I like to know what build I’m 
using - but maybe I should pick stable and just date stamp my image?)

Anyway just tried the latest 1077 and followed the steps I described (although 
using my caught up branch)  - when I right click on the detached pharo  - there 
is the Pharo menu item and inside that there is only the option to create a new 
branch for an issue?

Am I missing something (or is this something recently broken?)

Tim

> On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:35, Guillermo Polito  wrote:
> 
> Strange... I'm with Esteban there, I'd need more information to reproduce it.
> I've just done
> 
> $ wget -O - get.pharo.org/70+vm  | bash
> $ ./pharo-ui Pharo.image
> 
> - Open iceberg
> - Repair Pharo by cloning my (really out of date) fork (guillep/pharo)
> - Fetch
> - Repair -> Create branch
> 
> And I have the "New branch" option.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:28 PM Esteban Lorenzano  > wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 15:18, Tim Mackinnon > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Guillermo - it sounds like I’m on the right track - the only thing that 
>> caught me out was in the latest V7 there is no “new branch” - I have to have 
>> an issue number? The picture in your doc shows both possibilities?
> 
> how did you arrive there?
> seems to me that there should always be the opportunity of just branch. If 
> not, may be there is an error.
> 
> Esteban
> 
>> 
>> For now, I found a bug and created an issue, and so can experiment with that 
>> - but I think it is handy to create a generic branch so that you can 
>> experiment (while easily tracking your changes)?
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:01, Guillermo Polito >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM Tim Mackinnon >> > wrote:
>>> Hi - a few weeks ago, I contributed a tiny fix to Pharo 7 -and the 
>>> instructions seemed to work really well.
>>> 
>>> I’ve since come back to try and do some more over lunch (I was thinking I’d 
>>> like to dig out the changes I worked out for using the AST and cursor to 
>>> make senders/implements work properly and not just use the selected text).
>>> 
>>> My first problem was that my fork of Pharo from many months ago was out of 
>>> date - I think the instructions on 
>>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki/Contribute-a-fix-to-Pharo 
>>>  
>>> should probably mention this subtlety.
>>> 
>>> It took me ages to figure out what to do - this was the clue 
>>> (https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/ 
>>> ) - and of particular 
>>> note the the tiny bit at the bottom to ensure you Push your changes back to 
>>> your GitHub fork (I slightly complicated myself by using IntelliJ to do 
>>> this - doable but you need to be aware of whats going on). I did this in a 
>>> separate non-pharo directory (I think thats what you would recommend right? 
>>> Then you can keep updating it from time to time?)
>>> 
>>> Usually, you don't care. You don't need to update your fork :)
>>> You only need to:
>>>  - clone/locate your repository in disk
>>>  - fetch (this will find your commit in the pharo repository)
>>>  - create a new branch X
>>>  - push branch X to your fork
>>>  - make a pull request
>>> 
>>> The contribution process never goes through master nor development, so it 
>>> does not really matter if they are updated.
>>> And that's what I was showing in my videos because there is nothing else to 
>>> it :)
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Having got my GitHub fork caught up with pharo/development - I then have 
>>> the Local Repo Missing error (expected) - and now when I go to repair it I 
>>> can either clone again (which is the instructions online) - or “Locate this 
>>> repository in your file system”. As I’ve had to already check everything 
>>> out to catch up to pharo/dev I chose to locate.
>>> 
>>> I then get a Fetch require msg (expected)
>>> 
>>> I then choose to use Fetch (I’m not sure what the Repair repository picture 
>>> is now about?) - the text does mention I will become detached, so I’ve 
>>> stuck to that
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure why the “solving a detached working copy” is further down the 
>>> page - but I’ve jumped to that
>>> 
>>> It says I need to synchronise both (image and repo) - but then says its 
>>> easier to do a branch - and then says a nice alternative is to create a 
>>> temp branch like temp/synch - however I can’t see how to do that as there 
>>> is only Crete new Branch from Issue now (the picture shows that plus New 
>>> Branch).
>>> 
>>> I don't see what's the problem, maybe the UI can be enhanced to be more 
>>> explicit.
>>> But you can just select "New branch" and create a branch with any name.
>>> 
>>> I'll go a bit deeper here:
>>>  - you just downloaded a new image that was built 

Re: [Pharo-users] Help contributing a fix to pharo - docs seem out of date again?

[Guillermo Polito]

Strange... I'm with Esteban there, I'd need more information to reproduce
it.
I've just done

$ wget -O - get.pharo.org/70+vm | bash
$ ./pharo-ui Pharo.image

- Open iceberg
- Repair Pharo by cloning my (really out of date) fork (guillep/pharo)
- Fetch
- Repair -> Create branch

And I have the "New branch" option.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:28 PM Esteban Lorenzano 
wrote:

>
>
> On 19 Jun 2018, at 15:18, Tim Mackinnon  wrote:
>
> Hi Guillermo - it sounds like I’m on the right track - the only thing that
> caught me out was in the latest V7 there is no “new branch” - I have to
> have an issue number? The picture in your doc shows both possibilities?
>
>
> how did you arrive there?
> seems to me that there should always be the opportunity of just branch. If
> not, may be there is an error.
>
> Esteban
>
>
> For now, I found a bug and created an issue, and so can experiment with
> that - but I think it is handy to create a generic branch so that you can
> experiment (while easily tracking your changes)?
>
> Tim
>
> On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:01, Guillermo Polito 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM Tim Mackinnon  wrote:
>
>> Hi - a few weeks ago, I contributed a tiny fix to Pharo 7 -and the
>> instructions seemed to work really well.
>>
>> I’ve since come back to try and do some more over lunch (I was thinking
>> I’d like to dig out the changes I worked out for using the AST and cursor
>> to make senders/implements work properly and not just use the selected
>> text).
>>
>> My first problem was that my fork of Pharo from many months ago was out
>> of date - I think the instructions on
>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki/Contribute-a-fix-to-Pharo should
>> probably mention this subtlety.
>>
>
>> It took me ages to figure out what to do - this was the clue (
>> https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/) - and of particular
>> note the the tiny bit at the bottom to ensure you Push your changes back to
>> your GitHub fork (I slightly complicated myself by using IntelliJ to do
>> this - doable but you need to be aware of whats going on). I did this in a
>> separate non-pharo directory (I think thats what you would recommend right?
>> Then you can keep updating it from time to time?)
>>
>
> Usually, you don't care. You don't need to update your fork :)
> You only need to:
>  - clone/locate your repository in disk
>  - fetch (this will find your commit in the pharo repository)
>  - create a new branch X
>  - push branch X to your fork
>  - make a pull request
>
> The contribution process never goes through master nor development, so it
> does not really matter if they are updated.
> And that's what I was showing in my videos because there is nothing else
> to it :)
>
>
>>
>> Having got my GitHub fork caught up with pharo/development - I then have
>> the Local Repo Missing error (expected) - and now when I go to repair it I
>> can either clone again (which is the instructions online) - or “Locate this
>> repository in your file system”. As I’ve had to already check everything
>> out to catch up to pharo/dev I chose to locate.
>>
>> I then get a Fetch require msg (expected)
>>
>> I then choose to use Fetch (I’m not sure what the Repair repository
>> picture is now about?) - the text does mention I will become detached, so
>> I’ve stuck to that
>>
>> I’m not sure why the “solving a detached working copy” is further down
>> the page - but I’ve jumped to that
>>
>> It says I need to synchronise both (image and repo) - but then says its
>> easier to do a branch - and then says a nice alternative is to create a
>> temp branch like temp/synch - however I can’t see how to do that as there
>> is only Crete new Branch from Issue now (the picture shows that plus New
>> Branch).
>>
>
> I don't see what's the problem, maybe the UI can be enhanced to be more
> explicit.
> But you can just select "New branch" and create a branch with any name.
>
> I'll go a bit deeper here:
>  - you just downloaded a new image that was built from commit 100
>  - In the meantime, while you downloaded your image, a new PR would have
> been integrated in pharo, so now the development branch may not be anymore
> on commit 100 but on commit 101.
>  - Even worse! There is no branch at all pointing to 100, your image's
> commit
>  - So the safest way to work (because updating the image may be dangerous
> not because of Iceberg :)) is to create a new branch on your commit.
>
> However, while this is the recommended way to work on Pharo, on other
> projects you can do a more normal workflow: checkout, pull.
>
> Does this answer it? Maybe I've missed something?
>
>
>
>>
>> Am I on the right track here? If I want try something out - do I just
>> create myself a new issue (or is there a temp issue anyway?)
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Guille Polito
> Research Engineer
>
> Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille
> CRIStAL - UMR 9189
> French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr
> 

Re: [Pharo-users] Help contributing a fix to pharo - docs seem out of date again?

[Esteban Lorenzano]

> On 19 Jun 2018, at 15:18, Tim Mackinnon  wrote:
> 
> Hi Guillermo - it sounds like I’m on the right track - the only thing that 
> caught me out was in the latest V7 there is no “new branch” - I have to have 
> an issue number? The picture in your doc shows both possibilities?

how did you arrive there?
seems to me that there should always be the opportunity of just branch. If not, 
may be there is an error.

Esteban

> 
> For now, I found a bug and created an issue, and so can experiment with that 
> - but I think it is handy to create a generic branch so that you can 
> experiment (while easily tracking your changes)?
> 
> Tim
> 
>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:01, Guillermo Polito > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM Tim Mackinnon > > wrote:
>> Hi - a few weeks ago, I contributed a tiny fix to Pharo 7 -and the 
>> instructions seemed to work really well.
>> 
>> I’ve since come back to try and do some more over lunch (I was thinking I’d 
>> like to dig out the changes I worked out for using the AST and cursor to 
>> make senders/implements work properly and not just use the selected text).
>> 
>> My first problem was that my fork of Pharo from many months ago was out of 
>> date - I think the instructions on 
>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki/Contribute-a-fix-to-Pharo 
>>  
>> should probably mention this subtlety.
>> 
>> It took me ages to figure out what to do - this was the clue 
>> (https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/ 
>> ) - and of particular note 
>> the the tiny bit at the bottom to ensure you Push your changes back to your 
>> GitHub fork (I slightly complicated myself by using IntelliJ to do this - 
>> doable but you need to be aware of whats going on). I did this in a separate 
>> non-pharo directory (I think thats what you would recommend right? Then you 
>> can keep updating it from time to time?)
>> 
>> Usually, you don't care. You don't need to update your fork :)
>> You only need to:
>>  - clone/locate your repository in disk
>>  - fetch (this will find your commit in the pharo repository)
>>  - create a new branch X
>>  - push branch X to your fork
>>  - make a pull request
>> 
>> The contribution process never goes through master nor development, so it 
>> does not really matter if they are updated.
>> And that's what I was showing in my videos because there is nothing else to 
>> it :)
>>  
>> 
>> Having got my GitHub fork caught up with pharo/development - I then have the 
>> Local Repo Missing error (expected) - and now when I go to repair it I can 
>> either clone again (which is the instructions online) - or “Locate this 
>> repository in your file system”. As I’ve had to already check everything out 
>> to catch up to pharo/dev I chose to locate.
>> 
>> I then get a Fetch require msg (expected)
>> 
>> I then choose to use Fetch (I’m not sure what the Repair repository picture 
>> is now about?) - the text does mention I will become detached, so I’ve stuck 
>> to that
>> 
>> I’m not sure why the “solving a detached working copy” is further down the 
>> page - but I’ve jumped to that
>> 
>> It says I need to synchronise both (image and repo) - but then says its 
>> easier to do a branch - and then says a nice alternative is to create a temp 
>> branch like temp/synch - however I can’t see how to do that as there is only 
>> Crete new Branch from Issue now (the picture shows that plus New Branch).
>> 
>> I don't see what's the problem, maybe the UI can be enhanced to be more 
>> explicit.
>> But you can just select "New branch" and create a branch with any name.
>> 
>> I'll go a bit deeper here:
>>  - you just downloaded a new image that was built from commit 100
>>  - In the meantime, while you downloaded your image, a new PR would have 
>> been integrated in pharo, so now the development branch may not be anymore 
>> on commit 100 but on commit 101.
>>  - Even worse! There is no branch at all pointing to 100, your image's commit
>>  - So the safest way to work (because updating the image may be dangerous 
>> not because of Iceberg :)) is to create a new branch on your commit.
>> 
>> However, while this is the recommended way to work on Pharo, on other 
>> projects you can do a more normal workflow: checkout, pull.
>> 
>> Does this answer it? Maybe I've missed something?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Am I on the right track here? If I want try something out - do I just create 
>> myself a new issue (or is there a temp issue anyway?)
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>>
>> Guille Polito
>> Research Engineer
>> 
>> Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille
>> CRIStAL - UMR 9189
>> French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr 
>> 
>> 
>> Web: http://guillep.github.io 
>> Phone: +33 06 

Re: [Pharo-users] Help contributing a fix to pharo - docs seem out of date again?

[Tim Mackinnon]

Hi Guillermo - it sounds like I’m on the right track - the only thing that 
caught me out was in the latest V7 there is no “new branch” - I have to have an 
issue number? The picture in your doc shows both possibilities?

For now, I found a bug and created an issue, and so can experiment with that - 
but I think it is handy to create a generic branch so that you can experiment 
(while easily tracking your changes)?

Tim

> On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:01, Guillermo Polito  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM Tim Mackinnon  > wrote:
> Hi - a few weeks ago, I contributed a tiny fix to Pharo 7 -and the 
> instructions seemed to work really well.
> 
> I’ve since come back to try and do some more over lunch (I was thinking I’d 
> like to dig out the changes I worked out for using the AST and cursor to make 
> senders/implements work properly and not just use the selected text).
> 
> My first problem was that my fork of Pharo from many months ago was out of 
> date - I think the instructions on 
> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki/Contribute-a-fix-to-Pharo 
>  
> should probably mention this subtlety.
> 
> It took me ages to figure out what to do - this was the clue 
> (https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/ 
> ) - and of particular note 
> the the tiny bit at the bottom to ensure you Push your changes back to your 
> GitHub fork (I slightly complicated myself by using IntelliJ to do this - 
> doable but you need to be aware of whats going on). I did this in a separate 
> non-pharo directory (I think thats what you would recommend right? Then you 
> can keep updating it from time to time?)
> 
> Usually, you don't care. You don't need to update your fork :)
> You only need to:
>  - clone/locate your repository in disk
>  - fetch (this will find your commit in the pharo repository)
>  - create a new branch X
>  - push branch X to your fork
>  - make a pull request
> 
> The contribution process never goes through master nor development, so it 
> does not really matter if they are updated.
> And that's what I was showing in my videos because there is nothing else to 
> it :)
>  
> 
> Having got my GitHub fork caught up with pharo/development - I then have the 
> Local Repo Missing error (expected) - and now when I go to repair it I can 
> either clone again (which is the instructions online) - or “Locate this 
> repository in your file system”. As I’ve had to already check everything out 
> to catch up to pharo/dev I chose to locate.
> 
> I then get a Fetch require msg (expected)
> 
> I then choose to use Fetch (I’m not sure what the Repair repository picture 
> is now about?) - the text does mention I will become detached, so I’ve stuck 
> to that
> 
> I’m not sure why the “solving a detached working copy” is further down the 
> page - but I’ve jumped to that
> 
> It says I need to synchronise both (image and repo) - but then says its 
> easier to do a branch - and then says a nice alternative is to create a temp 
> branch like temp/synch - however I can’t see how to do that as there is only 
> Crete new Branch from Issue now (the picture shows that plus New Branch).
> 
> I don't see what's the problem, maybe the UI can be enhanced to be more 
> explicit.
> But you can just select "New branch" and create a branch with any name.
> 
> I'll go a bit deeper here:
>  - you just downloaded a new image that was built from commit 100
>  - In the meantime, while you downloaded your image, a new PR would have been 
> integrated in pharo, so now the development branch may not be anymore on 
> commit 100 but on commit 101.
>  - Even worse! There is no branch at all pointing to 100, your image's commit
>  - So the safest way to work (because updating the image may be dangerous not 
> because of Iceberg :)) is to create a new branch on your commit.
> 
> However, while this is the recommended way to work on Pharo, on other 
> projects you can do a more normal workflow: checkout, pull.
> 
> Does this answer it? Maybe I've missed something?
> 
>  
> 
> Am I on the right track here? If I want try something out - do I just create 
> myself a new issue (or is there a temp issue anyway?)
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> -- 
>
> Guille Polito
> Research Engineer
> 
> Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille
> CRIStAL - UMR 9189
> French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr 
> 
> 
> Web: http://guillep.github.io 
> Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13

Re: [Pharo-users] Help contributing a fix to pharo - docs seem out of date again?

[Guillermo Polito]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM Tim Mackinnon  wrote:

> Hi - a few weeks ago, I contributed a tiny fix to Pharo 7 -and the
> instructions seemed to work really well.
>
> I’ve since come back to try and do some more over lunch (I was thinking
> I’d like to dig out the changes I worked out for using the AST and cursor
> to make senders/implements work properly and not just use the selected
> text).
>
> My first problem was that my fork of Pharo from many months ago was out of
> date - I think the instructions on
> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki/Contribute-a-fix-to-Pharo should
> probably mention this subtlety.
>

> It took me ages to figure out what to do - this was the clue (
> https://help.github.com/articles/syncing-a-fork/) - and of particular
> note the the tiny bit at the bottom to ensure you Push your changes back to
> your GitHub fork (I slightly complicated myself by using IntelliJ to do
> this - doable but you need to be aware of whats going on). I did this in a
> separate non-pharo directory (I think thats what you would recommend right?
> Then you can keep updating it from time to time?)
>

Usually, you don't care. You don't need to update your fork :)
You only need to:
 - clone/locate your repository in disk
 - fetch (this will find your commit in the pharo repository)
 - create a new branch X
 - push branch X to your fork
 - make a pull request

The contribution process never goes through master nor development, so it
does not really matter if they are updated.
And that's what I was showing in my videos because there is nothing else to
it :)


>
> Having got my GitHub fork caught up with pharo/development - I then have
> the Local Repo Missing error (expected) - and now when I go to repair it I
> can either clone again (which is the instructions online) - or “Locate this
> repository in your file system”. As I’ve had to already check everything
> out to catch up to pharo/dev I chose to locate.
>
> I then get a Fetch require msg (expected)
>
> I then choose to use Fetch (I’m not sure what the Repair repository
> picture is now about?) - the text does mention I will become detached, so
> I’ve stuck to that
>
> I’m not sure why the “solving a detached working copy” is further down the
> page - but I’ve jumped to that
>
> It says I need to synchronise both (image and repo) - but then says its
> easier to do a branch - and then says a nice alternative is to create a
> temp branch like temp/synch - however I can’t see how to do that as there
> is only Crete new Branch from Issue now (the picture shows that plus New
> Branch).
>

I don't see what's the problem, maybe the UI can be enhanced to be more
explicit.
But you can just select "New branch" and create a branch with any name.

I'll go a bit deeper here:
 - you just downloaded a new image that was built from commit 100
 - In the meantime, while you downloaded your image, a new PR would have
been integrated in pharo, so now the development branch may not be anymore
on commit 100 but on commit 101.
 - Even worse! There is no branch at all pointing to 100, your image's
commit
 - So the safest way to work (because updating the image may be dangerous
not because of Iceberg :)) is to create a new branch on your commit.

However, while this is the recommended way to work on Pharo, on other
projects you can do a more normal workflow: checkout, pull.

Does this answer it? Maybe I've missed something?



>
> Am I on the right track here? If I want try something out - do I just
> create myself a new issue (or is there a temp issue anyway?)
>
> Tim
>


-- 



Guille Polito

Research Engineer

Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille

CRIStAL - UMR 9189

French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr
*


*Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* 

*Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13