>
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 16:18, Guillermo Polito
> wrote:
>
>
>
On 2 Oct 2018, at 12:30, Ben Coman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 23:16, Sean P. DeNigris
> wrote:
>
>> Tim Mackinnon wrote
>> > either by showing {owner}/{project}
>>
>> What about when there are multiple remotes?
>>
>
> +1
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:54 PM Ben Coman wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Guillermo Polito
> wrote:
>
>> - Maybe, for old projects that don't have a name, we could initialize a
>> project's name as it's repository name?
>>
>
> In any case, I'd expect the project name within Iceberg to
Ben Coman wrote
> I'd expect the project name within Iceberg to match the name
> of the working directory on disk.
I wonder if e.g. direct git loading creating a directory with the same name
as the repo (and maybe not what you'd want to see in Pharo) would make that
potentially problematic. Maybe
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 15:52, Guillermo Polito
wrote:
> - Maybe, for old projects that don't have a name, we could initialize a
> project's name as it's repository name?
>
In any case, I'd expect the project name within Iceberg to match the name
of the working directory on disk.
Possibly even
Issue: https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/issues/1009
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:02 AM Guillermo Polito
wrote:
> Aaand the mail got sent before :)
>
> Then two other comments that are related or I'd like to discuss:
> - So far we can allow in iceberg several projects with the same name.
>
Aaand the mail got sent before :)
Then two other comments that are related or I'd like to discuss:
- So far we can allow in iceberg several projects with the same name.
That is not a problem, so you can clone the same project from two different
repositories. Of course this would mean that one
Yes, I agree with most of the comments here. I'll try to summarize:
- we should be able to specify the name of a project independently of
their location/repository name
- Maybe, for old projects that don't have a name, we could initialize a
project's name as it's repository name?
On Tue, Oct
Sounds like the user override is what we are after - I guess we need to make a
pr ... sadly my laptop has died so it’s not going to be me for a little while
until I can find an Apple store on my travels.
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2 Oct 2018, at 12:30, Ben Coman wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mon,
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 23:16, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
> Tim Mackinnon wrote
> > either by showing {owner}/{project}
>
> What about when there are multiple remotes?
>
+1 to what you imply here, that the owner/remote should not be auto-coded
into the project name.
Remote are well handled within
Tim Mackinnon wrote
> either by showing {owner}/{project}
What about when there are multiple remotes?
Tim Mackinnon wrote
> letting you give a better name in the definition to override what is
> shown?
We have project metadata now, so that seems straightforward. I have a few
use cases where
10 matches
Mail list logo
