December 2018 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Catalog Entries

by Torsten Bergmann

Ben wrote >"If the tag is edited on the server, but the local one is old" Yes - there could be an issue with this "tag moving" approach if the server is not checked for new tags / moved tags and the version from the local repo cache is loaded - because you might load an outdated while the server already has a newer "latest-release". When I think a second time I guess what Sven wants could maybe also be achieved with another model: - having the "master" branch for development and tagged releases 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and so on - having a second "latest-release" branch where the current latest tag from master is just pulled/merged in Anytime you make a new release version in master you just pull it into this "latest-release" branch This has several benefits: - you can use the same stable load expression with stable URL: github://svenvc/ztimestamp:latest-release - you just tag in master as usual - when a new release was tagged in master you just switch to the "latest-release" branch, pull from master and push to github (easier than tag moving) - the graph ("Insights" -> "Network") shows you if you already pulled the latest tagged version from master into the "latest-release" branch and also shows you how far ahead you are with master in case of further development Also when the latest release has some trouble but your master development is not yet ready for a full new version you can hot-fix it in the "latest-release" branch to help people. Later when you are ready with another full new version you will have the branches resynched then anyway. I'm not sure if this model also has some drawbacks - but as it looks now this seems a better option... Bye T.

Dec. 18, 2018

[Pharo 7.0] Build #58: 22797 deprecated file does not exist should be moved to deprecated70 package

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #58 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #2092 was integrated: "22797 deprecated file does not exist should be moved to deprecated70 package" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2092 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22797 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Dec. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] possible QA rule - cascading to class

by Christopher Fuhrman

Hi Ben, On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 14:52, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > In case someone close to managing the QA rules is interested... on discord > it > was suggested that this form of cascading might be a trap for newcomers. > > x := MyClass new; foo > > I've never seen similar in practice, so it might make a good QA rule. > It currently raises "Sends unknown message to global" > but I'd guess a more specific message that actually mentions > "cascading" could be possible. > > I was the one who brought it up on Discord, being it seems the forever newbie with Pharo... It's worse if you have a class-side method. The error is "Instance of X class did not understand #foo", which is evil to newbies because an "instance of [a] class" seems like it should be an object, and I *did* have a message of type "foo" defined. Here's the real case with a screenshot: [image: image.png] Cheers, Christopher > cheers -ben > >

Dec. 18, 2018

possible QA rule - cascading to class

by Ben Coman

In case someone close to managing the QA rules is interested... on discord it was suggested that this form of cascading might be a trap for newcomers. x := MyClass new; foo I've never seen similar in practice, so it might make a good QA rule. It currently raises "Sends unknown message to global" but I'd guess a more specific message that actually mentions "cascading" could be possible. cheers -ben

Dec. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Catalog Entries

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 18 Dec 2018, at 14:23, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 21:01, Esteban Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > El mar., 18 dic. 2018 a las 9:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe > (<sven(a)stfx.eu>) escribiÃ³: > > > > So let us agree on the best name then, to minimise confusion going forward. > > > > I am not sure I would go for camel case, git is typically lowercase (or so it feels), I agree 'release' should be part of the name, so > > > > last-release > > latest-release > > lastRelease > > latestRelease > > Following "gittish" conventions, IMO `latest-release` would be the > proper name because "last" suggests me there won't be more releases > afterwards. > > Good point. +1. > > But I wonder if moving tags is really a good idea. I've not practical experience with it > but reading section "If the tag is edited on the server, but the local one is old" > http://blog.iqandreas.com/git/how-to-move-tags/ > it seems potentially complicated. > > Whereas if latest-release was a branch, after you version tag your release you could do... > $ git checkout latest-release > $ git merge tagversion > $ git push > > And side benefit, latest-release would show up in the github > Insights > Network view > to easily inspect what changes have been made since latest-release. > > cheers -ben interesting. since both a branch and a moving tag look the same from the reference standpoint, this could be considered an implementation detail, the repo maintainer could switch later on, while the URL would remain github://svenvc/ztimestamp:latest-release

Dec. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Catalog Entries

by Ben Coman

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 21:01, Esteban Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > El mar., 18 dic. 2018 a las 9:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe > (<sven(a)stfx.eu>) escribiÃ³: > > > > So let us agree on the best name then, to minimise confusion going > forward. > > > > I am not sure I would go for camel case, git is typically lowercase (or > so it feels), I agree 'release' should be part of the name, so > > > > last-release > > latest-release > > lastRelease > > latestRelease > > Following "gittish" conventions, IMO `latest-release` would be the > proper name because "last" suggests me there won't be more releases > afterwards. > Good point. +1. But I wonder if moving tags is really a good idea. I've not practical experience with it but reading section "If the tag is edited on the server, but the local one is old" http://blog.iqandreas.com/git/how-to-move-tags/ it seems potentially complicated. Whereas if latest-release was a branch, after you version tag your release you could do... $ git checkout latest-release $ git merge tagversion $ git push And side benefit, latest-release would show up in the github > Insights > Network view to easily inspect what changes have been made since latest-release. cheers -ben

Dec. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Catalog Entries

by Torsten Bergmann

JOKING: "lastRelease" is fine, there is no release afterwards anymore as it is completed by 100% ;) SERIOUS: "latest-release" seems appropriate

Dec. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Catalog Entries

by Esteban Maringolo

El mar., 18 dic. 2018 a las 9:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe (<sven(a)stfx.eu>) escribiÃ³: > > So let us agree on the best name then, to minimise confusion going forward. > > I am not sure I would go for camel case, git is typically lowercase (or so it feels), I agree 'release' should be part of the name, so > > last-release > latest-release > lastRelease > latestRelease Following "gittish" conventions, IMO `latest-release` would be the proper name because "last" suggests me there won't be more releases afterwards. Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo

Dec. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Catalog Entries

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

So let us agree on the best name then, to minimise confusion going forward. I am not sure I would go for camel case, git is typically lowercase (or so it feels), I agree 'release' should be part of the name, so last-release latest-release lastRelease latestRelease What say you ? > On 18 Dec 2018, at 13:45, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 19:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > I am trying to load https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/releases/latest which is actually https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/releases/tag/v24 > > The following works because that is the whole idea of releases (which are just tags) > > Metacello new > baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; > repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:v24'; > load. > > But I would like to do > > Metacello new > baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; > repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:latest'; > > This might be something good to have as a community convention, > but "latest" on its own is a bit ambiguous. Reading your subsequent post > maybe "latestRelease" would be good (or "lastRelease"), > to distinguish "latestStable" which is similar but not necessarily a release. > > (or maybe I'm being too pedantic) > cheers -ben > > load. > > Maybe that is not possible, maybe that has to be done in another way. > > I know about master or other branch names, I was hoping latest was moving/tracking like https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/releases/latest does > > > On 18 Dec 2018, at 12:05, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:00 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > > > > > On 17 Dec 2018, at 20:18, Torsten Bergmann <astares(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > > Model 1: Work with a single branch and close a release using a tag as version in git > > > =================================================================================== > > > This is I guess how Iceberg, Calypso and others are maintained now. You work on a specific (development) branch and > > > use the git tagging to mark release like milestone of your project ("versions"). > > > > > > This is the model I started to maintain ConfigurationOfTealight (which you will find in catalog > > > and in https://github.com/astares/Tealight) > > > > > > So I tagged in git when I reached something shareable as you can see on the first releases: https://github.com/astares/Tealight/releases > > > and then reference this git tagged version in my ConfigurationOfTealight: > > > > > > v0_0_4: spec > > > <version: '0.0.4'> > > > > > > spec for: #'common' do: [ > > > spec blessing: #'stable'. > > > spec > > > baseline: 'Tealight' with: [ > > > spec > > > className: 'BaselineOfTealight'; > > > repository: 'github://astares/Tealight:0.0.4/repository' ]] > > > > > > > > > The advantage is that you use git to tag the releases, it is a reproducable stable version then and GitHub shows it on > > > the "releases" tab. One typically can not modify the release afterwards (which is not 100% true as git tags could be moved but this is > > > another story). > > > > > > So with this model you form and finalize/close a release by tagging in git/GitHub and reference it in your ConfigurationOf.... > > > > Would it not be possible to refer to the latest release ? For example: > > > > > github://astares/Tealight:latest/repository > > > > That way one would no longer have to update the ConfigurationOf (just like the BaselineOf does not have to be updated), just making a new release would be enough. > > > > I tried, but I get Revspec 'latest' not found. > > > > I'm following the conversation in diagonal, but if this error is raised by metacello's iceberg integration it would mean that Tealight has no commitish (tag/branch) with the name latest.

Dec. 18, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Catalog Entries

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Yes that is what I want, I hoped it already existed, by yes we can use a tag that we move with each release. > On 18 Dec 2018, at 13:45, Torsten Bergmann <astares(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi Sven, > > so if I understood you correctly you want a single branch for development - lets assume you directly use > master for that. > > If you just load the branch you get the "latest development" things that are still > work in progress. > > Then from time to time you tag a version for release: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 in your master branch. > > If today 3.0 is your latest release they should have a load expression to load 3.0. > If tomorrow you tag a new release 4.0 you want to them to use the same load expression to > get the "latest released". > > Right? > > There is no specific meta-tag for that. But as a tag is nothing more than a string applied to a commit for later reference > you could additionally tag the commit of 3.0 with a tag "latest" or "latestRelease" and then later (after 4.0 is released) > move this tag to the commit that was used for building a new 4.0. > > I have not tried but as you could delete and/or move tags in git this should be doable in git without any > problem. Just google for "tag moving" and "git". > > Metacello itself does not care - it then will use > > Metacello new > baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; > repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:latestRelease'; > load. > > to ask git for the tag. But it is your responsibility to move the tag "latestRelease" forward manually anytime > you do a new release. > > As you usually tag locally - remember to push the tags afterwards. Double checking afterwards in GitHub helps > here. The command > > git push -f --tags > > could be helpful here. > > Hope this solves what you require. > > Thanks > Torsten > > > > > > > >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2018 um 12:54 Uhr >> Von: "Sven Van Caekenberghe" <sven(a)stfx.eu> >> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> >> Betreff: Re: [Pharo-dev] Catalog Entries >> >> >> >>> On 18 Dec 2018, at 12:48, Torsten Bergmann <astares(a)gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sven, >>> >>> did you try to just use the branch name as in the other model. >>> >>> Metacello new >>> baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; >>> repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:master'; >>> load. >>> >>> then it should load the latest from this branch independent from the >>> tags. >>> >>> Bye >>> T. >> >> I know about master and what it means, but that is not exactly what I want. >> >> When you release, that is a deliberate action: you put a stamp on the current project timeline, declaring it as ready/stable enough for people to depend on. >> >> The master branch can further evolve after a (latest) release. It is the next release candidate. >> >> I would like to depend on whatever released version is the latest. See the URLs in my previous email. >> >> >> >

Dec. 18, 2018