- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Calypso browser and categories?

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Hi Denis, I wanted to give a serious test to Calypso, that is, start using it all day long. However, there is a critical thing I am missing, which is the grouping of categories (inside packages). I do not want to start discussing again packages vs categories and what are good and bad practices. I do have a few packages and each package may have several categories inside. So... seeing all classes together inside a package is not nice for me. Is there a way in calypso to auto-escope to category level? I mean... say my package is XXX and I have categories XXX-A and XXX-B. I know I can go to left side column and with the tree, I can go to XXX-A and I get what I want. But, for example, when I browse a class of XXX-A, the "focus" of the left side column is XXX and not XXX-A. So I am wondering if we can make it auto-scope to the category everywhere in Calypso. Thanks in advance, -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

July 31, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

by Ben Coman

I found this useful to clarify my understanding of git... https://git-scm.com/book/en/v1/Git-Internals cheers -ben On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > So Iâm still puzzled why what I have said is incorrect - tag on master, > update your repository url to include that tag with â:tagnameâ and then > users will get that stable version when they load your baseline (vs. > Leaving it off and they get whatever you might have in progress on master. > And sure - you might develop on a branch and get it all perfect first and > then merge to master - but I still think it is good idea to tag the point > you are happy with and then update your baselineOf again?) > > Peter seems to be implying there is a different (better?) way to do this - > and Iâm wondering if Iâm missing something obvious or whether we are all > saying the same thing (me rather badly it seems) > > Tim > > On 31 Jul 2017, at 10:18, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > Perhaps a different way of phrasing it that might help is that tags are > global, not per branch. > > Checking out a commit, whether by id, tag, or Branch name implies the > entire tree. > > Cheers, > Alistair > > > On 31 Jul. 2017 11:09 am, "Tim Mackinnon" <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > Hi Peter - I am confused now, Iâve always understood that git tags are > used to mark important points in history. From the Git online manual - " > Tagging > > Like most VCSs, Git has the ability to tag specific points in history as > being important. Typically people use this functionality to mark release > points (v1.0, and so on). In this section, youâll learn how to list the > available tags, how to create new tags, and what the different types of > tags are. > â > > So Iâve always understood that by putting a tag on a commit, I was getting > a snapshot of the whole graph at that point in time? Thus - by specifying > the â:tag nameâ on the baseline url, you were getting that version? > > Thinking a bit more, I guess if you want to to actually make some changes > from that tag point - you do need to create a -b branch from it (otherwise > you have a detached head right?) - is this what you are getting at? > > Or is there a more obvious thing I am missing that lets you point to a > particular version in GIT? I appreciate your insight into this, as I think > we all need to learn how to do this properly. > > Tim > > On 31 Jul 2017, at 08:17, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Nono, I don't think you fully understand git's versioning. > > To oversimplify: git's history is composed of commits and parental > relationships between them. Nothing more, nothing less; it is just a > directed acyclic graph. > > On top of this graph structure you have additional stuff like branches, > which are just labels atteched to the commits, and also tags, which are > also just labels. > > So when you tag a commit, it doesn't really matter what branch it was on, > you've simply said that tag 1.0 points to a particular commit XXXXXX in the > history; that commit could belong to master branch, or development branch, > or any other branch (or no named branch at all, also known as detached > head). > > In another words, your tag points to a commit only, and branches do not > play any role in this whatsoever. > > Am I being clear? (I'm sipping my morning coffee so my brain is not fully > operational yet ;) ) > > Peter > > > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Tim Mackinnon wrote: > > Peter - I meant it as a figurative example - on a master branch you can > tag whenever you want right? And so you can point users to a specific tag > on master so they have a stable point to load from (possibly while you > merge a branch back to master and then update any documentation or config > before retagging and updating a BaselineOf? > > This looks like what the AWS Smalltalk git repo has used as an example. > > Tim > > (Ps > Apologies for the "rage" iOS autocorrect - apparently that's what Apple > thinks tags is corrected to ;) > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > Sent from my iPhone > On 30 Jul 2017, at 16:35, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a > version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL > > https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/ > > > I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag > name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or > whatever would be the latest in master). > > (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id) > > Peter > > > > > > > >

July 31, 2017

Referencing Git tags/branchs/commits [Hijacked: Re: [ANN] Mustache moved to github]

by Peter Uhnak

> Iâve always understood that git tags are used to mark important points in history Correct (mark=label) > putting a tag on a commit, I was getting a snapshot of the whole graph No, there's no need to perform a snapshot of the whole graph. Commit id (the 40-bit SHA of a commit) is computed from various properties including the content of the commit and the parents, therefore if a single bit would have changed in the content, then the ID would be different. Thus you don't need to perform a whole snapshot (that would be git clone --depth=1), because knowing just the ID is enough to identify the version, content, and ancestry. Without anything else, you would work only with the SHA numbers... checking out XXXXXX, merging XXXX to YYYY, etc. As this is very annoying, you have several concepts to help you * lightweight tag --- this is literally just a text file in .git/refs/tags/tag-name that has the ID of the pointed-to commit * annotated tag --- stored again in `.git/refs/tags/tag-name`, but instead it points to an intermediate file that contains info about the person creating the tag, the tag message, etc, but not the tag content; instead the intermediate file again points to a commit ID (you can look at the content of the intermediate file in .git/objects (git cat-file to read it) * branch is a kind of a "moving tag"; in e.g. `.git/refs/heads/master` you would see the ID of the latest commit (just like a lightweight tag) So branch is in reality just the tip of the branch (the head of it), and the previous commits do not really belong to any branch. (You can see this when you merge a branch and then delete the merged branch... the commits are still there, only the label was removed.). So it would be as if you deleted a tag and created it again after each commit. > So Iâve always understood that by putting a tag on a commit, I was getting a snapshot of the whole graph at that point in time? Thus - by specifying the â:tag nameâ on the baseline url, you were getting that version? tags and branches are just labels; you could directly use :<commit sha> in the baseline with the same effect > Thinking a bit more, I guess if you want to to actually make some changes from that tag point - you do need to create a -b branch from it (otherwise you have a detached head right?) - is this what you are getting at? you don't need a branch, you can just carry on from the "detached" head > Or is there a more obvious thing I am missing that lets you point to a particular version in GIT? Yes, you can just say, I want code as it was in version <COMMIT-SHA>. To summarize: * the commit graph representation has no notion of branches or tags * you can use commit sha instead of tags/branchs * tags are just references to particular commits * branches are just like tags, only the reference changes after each commit * the data representation is very simple and straight-forward, and you can easily view it by hand (from terminal with git cat-file) in the .git folder Peter (am I making it more clear or more obscure? :-D)

July 31, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

by Tim Mackinnon

So Iâm still puzzled why what I have said is incorrect - tag on master, update your repository url to include that tag with â:tagnameâ and then users will get that stable version when they load your baseline (vs. Leaving it off and they get whatever you might have in progress on master. And sure - you might develop on a branch and get it all perfect first and then merge to master - but I still think it is good idea to tag the point you are happy with and then update your baselineOf again?) Peter seems to be implying there is a different (better?) way to do this - and Iâm wondering if Iâm missing something obvious or whether we are all saying the same thing (me rather badly it seems) Tim > On 31 Jul 2017, at 10:18, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > Perhaps a different way of phrasing it that might help is that tags are global, not per branch. > > Checking out a commit, whether by id, tag, or Branch name implies the entire tree. > > Cheers, > Alistair > > > On 31 Jul. 2017 11:09 am, "Tim Mackinnon" <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > Hi Peter - I am confused now, Iâve always understood that git tags are used to mark important points in history. From the Git online manual - " > Tagging > Like most VCSs, Git has the ability to tag specific points in history as being important. Typically people use this functionality to mark release points (v1.0, and so on). In this section, youâll learn how to list the available tags, how to create new tags, and what the different types of tags are. > > â > > So Iâve always understood that by putting a tag on a commit, I was getting a snapshot of the whole graph at that point in time? Thus - by specifying the â:tag nameâ on the baseline url, you were getting that version? > > Thinking a bit more, I guess if you want to to actually make some changes from that tag point - you do need to create a -b branch from it (otherwise you have a detached head right?) - is this what you are getting at? > > Or is there a more obvious thing I am missing that lets you point to a particular version in GIT? I appreciate your insight into this, as I think we all need to learn how to do this properly. > > Tim > >> On 31 Jul 2017, at 08:17, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com <mailto:i.uhnak@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Nono, I don't think you fully understand git's versioning. >> >> To oversimplify: git's history is composed of commits and parental relationships between them. Nothing more, nothing less; it is just a directed acyclic graph. >> >> On top of this graph structure you have additional stuff like branches, which are just labels atteched to the commits, and also tags, which are also just labels. >> >> So when you tag a commit, it doesn't really matter what branch it was on, you've simply said that tag 1.0 points to a particular commit XXXXXX in the history; that commit could belong to master branch, or development branch, or any other branch (or no named branch at all, also known as detached head). >> >> In another words, your tag points to a commit only, and branches do not play any role in this whatsoever. >> >> Am I being clear? (I'm sipping my morning coffee so my brain is not fully operational yet ;) ) >> >> Peter >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Tim Mackinnon wrote: >>> Peter - I meant it as a figurative example - on a master branch you can tag whenever you want right? And so you can point users to a specific tag on master so they have a stable point to load from (possibly while you merge a branch back to master and then update any documentation or config before retagging and updating a BaselineOf? >>> >>> This looks like what the AWS Smalltalk git repo has used as an example. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> (Ps >>> Apologies for the "rage" iOS autocorrect - apparently that's what Apple thinks tags is corrected to ;) >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> On 30 Jul 2017, at 16:35, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com <mailto:i.uhnak@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL >>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/ <https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/> >>>> >>>> I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or whatever would be the latest in master). >>>> >>>> (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id) >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>> >>> >> > >

July 31, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

by Alistair Grant

Hi Tim, Perhaps a different way of phrasing it that might help is that tags are global, not per branch. Checking out a commit, whether by id, tag, or Branch name implies the entire tree. Cheers, Alistair On 31 Jul. 2017 11:09 am, "Tim Mackinnon" <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: Hi Peter - I am confused now, Iâve always understood that git tags are used to mark important points in history. From the Git online manual - "Tagging Like most VCSs, Git has the ability to tag specific points in history as being important. Typically people use this functionality to mark release points (v1.0, and so on). In this section, youâll learn how to list the available tags, how to create new tags, and what the different types of tags are. â So Iâve always understood that by putting a tag on a commit, I was getting a snapshot of the whole graph at that point in time? Thus - by specifying the â:tag nameâ on the baseline url, you were getting that version? Thinking a bit more, I guess if you want to to actually make some changes from that tag point - you do need to create a -b branch from it (otherwise you have a detached head right?) - is this what you are getting at? Or is there a more obvious thing I am missing that lets you point to a particular version in GIT? I appreciate your insight into this, as I think we all need to learn how to do this properly. Tim On 31 Jul 2017, at 08:17, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: Nono, I don't think you fully understand git's versioning. To oversimplify: git's history is composed of commits and parental relationships between them. Nothing more, nothing less; it is just a directed acyclic graph. On top of this graph structure you have additional stuff like branches, which are just labels atteched to the commits, and also tags, which are also just labels. So when you tag a commit, it doesn't really matter what branch it was on, you've simply said that tag 1.0 points to a particular commit XXXXXX in the history; that commit could belong to master branch, or development branch, or any other branch (or no named branch at all, also known as detached head). In another words, your tag points to a commit only, and branches do not play any role in this whatsoever. Am I being clear? (I'm sipping my morning coffee so my brain is not fully operational yet ;) ) Peter On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Tim Mackinnon wrote: Peter - I meant it as a figurative example - on a master branch you can tag whenever you want right? And so you can point users to a specific tag on master so they have a stable point to load from (possibly while you merge a branch back to master and then update any documentation or config before retagging and updating a BaselineOf? This looks like what the AWS Smalltalk git repo has used as an example. Tim (Ps Apologies for the "rage" iOS autocorrect - apparently that's what Apple thinks tags is corrected to ;) Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone On 30 Jul 2017, at 16:35, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/ I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or whatever would be the latest in master). (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id) Peter

July 31, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

by Tim Mackinnon

Hi Peter - I am confused now, Iâve always understood that git tags are used to mark important points in history. From the Git online manual - " Tagging Like most VCSs, Git has the ability to tag specific points in history as being important. Typically people use this functionality to mark release points (v1.0, and so on). In this section, youâll learn how to list the available tags, how to create new tags, and what the different types of tags are. â So Iâve always understood that by putting a tag on a commit, I was getting a snapshot of the whole graph at that point in time? Thus - by specifying the â:tag nameâ on the baseline url, you were getting that version? Thinking a bit more, I guess if you want to to actually make some changes from that tag point - you do need to create a -b branch from it (otherwise you have a detached head right?) - is this what you are getting at? Or is there a more obvious thing I am missing that lets you point to a particular version in GIT? I appreciate your insight into this, as I think we all need to learn how to do this properly. Tim > On 31 Jul 2017, at 08:17, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Nono, I don't think you fully understand git's versioning. > > To oversimplify: git's history is composed of commits and parental relationships between them. Nothing more, nothing less; it is just a directed acyclic graph. > > On top of this graph structure you have additional stuff like branches, which are just labels atteched to the commits, and also tags, which are also just labels. > > So when you tag a commit, it doesn't really matter what branch it was on, you've simply said that tag 1.0 points to a particular commit XXXXXX in the history; that commit could belong to master branch, or development branch, or any other branch (or no named branch at all, also known as detached head). > > In another words, your tag points to a commit only, and branches do not play any role in this whatsoever. > > Am I being clear? (I'm sipping my morning coffee so my brain is not fully operational yet ;) ) > > Peter > > > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Tim Mackinnon wrote: >> Peter - I meant it as a figurative example - on a master branch you can tag whenever you want right? And so you can point users to a specific tag on master so they have a stable point to load from (possibly while you merge a branch back to master and then update any documentation or config before retagging and updating a BaselineOf? >> >> This looks like what the AWS Smalltalk git repo has used as an example. >> >> Tim >> >> (Ps >> Apologies for the "rage" iOS autocorrect - apparently that's what Apple thinks tags is corrected to ;) >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> On 30 Jul 2017, at 16:35, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL >>>> >>>>> https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/ >>> >>> I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or whatever would be the latest in master). >>> >>> (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id) >>> >>> Peter >>> >> >> >

July 31, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

by Peter Uhnak

* you can have metadata-less filetree and metadata-full(?) filetree * metadata are version information like the author name, versions of packages, parent versions, etc. * metadata-less do not store such information as it is assumed that the information is stored elsewhere (e.g. in git history) * gitfiletree is just a filetree format, which in addition performs git commits of the exported files via shell execution of Git executable * gitfiletree can operate both in metadata, and metadata-less mode (the latter is preferable, otherwise you'll have an endless barrage of merge conflicts) * iceberg is metadata-less filetree only, and performs git commits using libgit So yes, the format is the same and you can even use gitfiletree and iceberg at the same time from e.g. different images. Peter On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:11:48PM -0300, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote: > Hi all > > Sorry to Norbert for hijacking this post, but I'd also like to move > some of my projects to Github, I used Peter's scripts in the past, but > one thing I don't understand is how to automatically convert a > ConfigurationOf to a BaselineOf, and if this is really necessary. > > Is the FileTree format, as used by filetree and gitfiletree MC repos, > 100% compatible with the repository format of Iceberg? It seems so to > me, but it's better to ask than be sorry. > > Regards! > > Esteban A. Maringolo > > > 2017-07-30 11:35 GMT-03:00 Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com>: > >> > >> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL > >> > >> > https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/ > >> > > > > I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or whatever would be the latest in master). > > > > (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id) > > > > Peter > > >

July 31, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Mustache moved to github

by Peter Uhnak

Nono, I don't think you fully understand git's versioning. To oversimplify: git's history is composed of commits and parental relationships between them. Nothing more, nothing less; it is just a directed acyclic graph. On top of this graph structure you have additional stuff like branches, which are just labels atteched to the commits, and also tags, which are also just labels. So when you tag a commit, it doesn't really matter what branch it was on, you've simply said that tag 1.0 points to a particular commit XXXXXX in the history; that commit could belong to master branch, or development branch, or any other branch (or no named branch at all, also known as detached head). In another words, your tag points to a commit only, and branches do not play any role in this whatsoever. Am I being clear? (I'm sipping my morning coffee so my brain is not fully operational yet ;) ) Peter On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:28:44PM +0200, Tim Mackinnon wrote: > Peter - I meant it as a figurative example - on a master branch you can tag whenever you want right? And so you can point users to a specific tag on master so they have a stable point to load from (possibly while you merge a branch back to master and then update any documentation or config before retagging and updating a BaselineOf? > > This looks like what the AWS Smalltalk git repo has used as an example. > > Tim > > (Ps > Apologies for the "rage" iOS autocorrect - apparently that's what Apple thinks tags is corrected to ;) > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > Sent from my iPhone > On 30 Jul 2017, at 16:35, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > >> If I've understood correctly, this means you can rage master with a version number like v1.1 and then put that in the URL > >> > >>> https://github.com/peteruhnak/IconFactory/tree/master:v1.1/ > > > > I am not sure where you got this url from, but combining branch and tag name makes nor sense... that's like you wanted a version 1.1 AND 2.3 (or whatever would be the latest in master). > > > > (as mentioned in the syntax: branch name OR commit id OR tag id) > > > > Peter > > > >

July 31, 2017

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ci-announces] IMPORTANT: Virtual Machines loss

by Christophe Demarey

> Le 30 juil. 2017 Ã 10:39, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > > I don't want to be pesimistic, but this means we don't have CI until we restore all slaves. From the Pharo point of view, we lost almost all but 1 or 2 slaves in different ci servers. Check: > > - https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/ <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/> > - https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/ <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/> > - https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/ <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/> > > I'd like to make for real a call for help in here. We have, for each project (pharo, pharo-contribution, ci-jenkins2), to set-up slaves for windows linux and mac. This means we have to create slaves, check they can connect to jenkins (and otherwise configure them, install dependencies (windows through remote desktop...)). I will create most of slaves today for all projects.

July 31, 2017

Esteban's ChangeLog week of 24 July 2017

by estebanlm＠gmail.com

Hello! This is my weekly ChangeLog, from 24 July 2017 to 30 July 2017. You can see it in a better format by going here: http://log.smallworks.eu/web/search?from=24/7/2017&to=30/7/2017 ChangeLog ========= 25 July 2017: ------------- * I made a [pull request](https://github.com/hpi-swa/smalltalkCI/pull/311) to enable Pharo 6.1 on SmalltalkCI :) 24 July 2017: ------------- * I just released [Pharo 6.1](http://pharo.org/news/pharo6.1-released) to update VM and Iceberg (which now is version 0.5.5). cheers! Esteban

July 31, 2017