On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:28:11 +0100, Peter Uhnák wrote:
I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that.
Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just
specify name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it
is
On 02/13/2017 03:28 AM, Peter Uhnák wrote:
> I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that.
Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just
specify name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it
is pulled from a central repository.
> I meant, can a Baseline be stored in / operate from a mcz file, without a
> Configuration?
> I thought git made Baselines feasible since git takes care of versioning.
Git takes care of the versioning, so the Baseline is really just a baseline,
like it would be in a ConfigurationOf.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Peter Uhnák wrote:
> > I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that.
>
> Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just specify
> name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it is
> I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that.
Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just specify
name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it is pulled
from a central repository.
So that's why I thought that maybe the MetaRepo
Very good to hear ... I have to try to be a bit more patient :)
On 2/12/17 9:37 AM, stepharong wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:36:42 +0100, Dale Henrichs
wrote:
Peter,
In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository
of project
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:36:42 +0100, Dale Henrichs
wrote:
Peter,
In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of
project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project
specification would contain the meta data for a project
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Dale Henrichs <
dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
> Peter,
>
>
>
> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of
> project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project specification
> would contain the meta data for a
Peter,
In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of
project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project
specification would contain the meta data for a project (like this[2])
instead of a copy of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always out-of-date.
Hi,
would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead
directly from the source?
I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that.
Usually I have a conf in my repo referencing other repo and not the meta
one
Then I push in the meta just to config.
On 12/02/17 13:03, Peter Uhnak wrote:
would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead directly from
the source?
Not really. They are not kept exactly up-to-date in practice, and having
one for each Pharo version is also kind of a bad practice.
What is missing is some
Hi,
would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead directly from
the source?
And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to do it right
now?
E.g.
spec
project: 'Magritte'
with: [ spec
className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3;
12 matches
Mail list logo