[Pharo-dev] PharoLauncher - uninformative Pharo7 template names

Stephane Ducasse stepharo.self at gmail.com
Sat Aug 5 12:17:48 EDT 2017


Hi torsten

Yes it sounds good to have MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH/BUILDNUMBER scheme

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Torsten Bergmann <astares at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> reason is that for Pharo 7 currently an sha git hash is used in the file
> name
> instead of a (more clear) build number.
>
> See http://files.pharo.org/image/70/
>
> This problem (which has more side effects on different sides, not only the
> Launcher now) was discussed
> already yesterday on Discord #iceberg channel with Esteban and Pavel.
>
> The current sha based image file name scheme is not only confusing but has
> some downsides.
> One can not easily remember the SHA or see which image is the latest, or
> sort from recent
> images to older in a folder.
>
> If I understood correctly the reason to (initially) choose sha's in the
> image name has something
> to do with Travis and a discussion between Pavel, Esteban and Guille.
>
> I would vote for using Build numbers again.
>
> We would have several BENEFITS when keeping/returning to build numbers for
> Pharo 7:
>   - we do not change image file names, about box behavior, ... compared to
> previous Pharo version < 7
>     (as we used image build number already in the past)
>  - we tag each release as before and see it in Git (we can easily reproduce)
>  - the build number easily tells you which image is more recent (as before)
>  - we can easily sort when we have several images in a directory
>  - a build number is more readable and recognizable by a human (compared to
> the shas)
>  - Pharo is not an "aliens" compared to the rest of the software world as
> often software
>    follows a MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH/BUILDNUMBER scheme (see semver.org)
>  - we do not change the order in Launcher (higher numbers at the top to
> download more recent)
>
> According to the discussion with Esteban and Pavel it is technically
> possible to have build numbers again -
> it means to tag each commit again with a build number (we already did this
> for Pharo 6,
> see https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/releases)
>
> The outcome from yesterday was that Pavel will discuss again with Guile on
> that topic. It would be good if others
> could comment on that topic too. Maybe we can return to the known build
> number scheme
> or (if there are problems with that) at least know the arguments why we need
> to be exotic/different on
> this corner in the future.
>
> Thanks
> T.
>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 03. August 2017 um 15:41 Uhr
> Von: "Ben Coman" <btc at openinworld.com>
> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev at lists.pharo.org>
> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] PharoLauncher - uninformative Pharo7 template names
>
> Attached is what I see for Pharo 7 images in PharoLauncher.
> I presume the top one is the latest, but Its a bit hard to tell :P
> Anyone else seeing this?
>
> Loading ConfigurationOfPharoLauncher-ChristopheDemarey.53 (latest)
> and doing "ConfigurationOfPharoLauncher loadDevelopment"
> which loads PharoLauncher-Core-ChristopheDemarey.116 (latest)
>
> This is with Pharo builds 60486 and 60510, and same VM for both...
>    Win32 built on May 31 2017 03:09:04 GMT Compiler: 5.4.0 VMMaker
> versionString VM: 201705310241
>    CoInterpreter VMMaker.oscog-eem.2231 uuid:
> de62947a-7f40-4977-a232-e06a3a80c939 May 31 2017
>
> (but btw, does that look strange? The 60510 image was lauched from the
> original 60486-PharoLauncher which said it was downloading the matching VM,
> so I kind of expect each image to have a different VM ?? )
>
> cheers -ben



More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list