- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Symbolic version management with Metacello) was: OSSubprocess use

by Stephan Eggermont

We want to use Metacello to manage smalltalk dependencies in a way that results in working software using a minimum amount of manual work. At the moment there are several ways in which Metacello is used, some of which result in more work and instability than others. An inherent conflict in managing these dependencies is the level of repeatability that is wanted and achievable, vs. the amount of manual work needed. On the one hand we would like perfect repeatability. That needs an exact description of the order in which specific versions of packages were loaded in a specific image. In Metacello, we can achieve this by making sure all package versions are fixed and the dependencies are fixed to numeric versions. The problem with this is that that not necessarily results in working software. There are several reasons for this: - Metacello only manages the smalltalk level dependencies. It does not take into account changes in the vm necessitating image-level changes or operating system and library changes. - The image itself is not fully managed with Metacello (yet). Bug fixes made after the creation of the Metacello version might be needed for the software to work. - Bugs might have been found and fixed in dependencies. In the situation of a top-level configuration, i.e. one that no other configuration depends on, this might be acceptable. Metacello dependencies are defined one-directional. A configuration knows on which configuration it depends, not which configurations depend on it. Configurations that are published should therefore always be regarded as possibly being used by others, and not only top-level. If we consider the situation where others (B) are depending on configurations (A) that are written like this, then the situation gets worse: - B might need an update because it is affected by an issue that does not affect A. - B might need a different load ordering, e.g. need to only partially load dependencies of A, then something itself and then the other dependencies of A. Nevertheless, sometimes we need near-perfect repeatability. For that, a snapshot of all loaded packages provides a reasonable alternative to a Metacello configuration version. On the other hand the least amount of manual updates results from always depending on #development or #stable versions of dependencies. This results in the following problems: - If the API of a dependency changes, the configuration might break silently. - Projects might be slow to promote versions from #bleedingEdge to #development to #stable, resulting in a slow uptake of improvements. For configurations of simple packages that have an API that is very stable or only expands, depending on #stable can be appropriate. From a modularity point of view, a configuration should be specific on the packages in its own span of control, and as generous as possible in what it accepts from its dependencies. In that way a high cohesion and low coupling is achieved. We can achieve that by defining symbolic versions that reflect observable change in behaviour. If we make changes that should not affect users of the configuration, we create a new numeric version and update the symbolic version in place to use this new version. By default we only depend on these symbolic versions. Stephan

Jan. 23, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] OSSubprocess use

by Thierry Goubier

Hi Eliot, Le 23/01/2016 17:04, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit : > Hi Both, Hi Dale, > >> On Jan 23, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Thierry Goubier >> <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Le 23/01/2016 15:44, Mariano Martinez Peck a Ã©crit : >>> Hi Thierry, >>> >>> The Metacello answer here would be "it's up to you" hahahaha. I >>> don't have a strong opinion. Most of the times I am in the >>> similar situation, I tend to use fixed versions when the projects >>> are really coupled and one cannot work without the other. And use >>> #stable when they are less coupled and I would not die if that >>> dependency is broken for some time until fixed. >>> >>> What would be the problem of using #stable? That I may release >>> new versions which may break the user API, or I may introduce >>> bugs that I didn't discover before, etc etc. It won't be fun if I >>> update GitFileTree and suddenly I cannot commit anymore. But at >>> the same time, you don't expect a user to be updating GitFileTree >>> in his image. In addition, you have a CI that will tell you >>> immediately if the build fail or your tests failed. >>> >>> If you ask me, I think I would use fixed versions. Then, whenever >>> I release a new version, you give it a try, you test it, you try >>> it in the CI, etc. If everything seems to work, then I would >>> update your conf and point to new version. >> >> Yes. What is interesting is I can just target the baseline of >> OSSubprocess in that case, using that url >> >> github://marianopeck/OSSubprocess:v0.2.0/repository >> >> which is convenient. >> >> Thierry > > Maybe soon enough we can find a way of integrating CI server test > results for specific packages with Metacello and talk not about > #stable, but #greenest. Green means tests have passed, but i think > the connotation of green=young is common too, no? (viÃ±o verde). > This doesn't protect against API changes, when the tests get changed > to match the new API, but that implies versioning the API separately > from the package so one can ask for #greenest #api=1.23. Well, if you take a Travis / Github integration and you fetch from branch 1.23, then you should only merge into that branch with a pull request if the tests are green. Moreover, with Metacello, baselines and branches you allways target the newest version; as long as your CI ensure that tests are green before merging into public/stable branches, then that already works. The branch methodology would look like that, then: - one branch for each stable / long lived version with garanteed API compatibility - v1.1 - one tag for each released version, when merged in their right overall branch - v1.1.0, v1.1.1, v1.1.2, v1.1.3 (inside branch v1.1) - development branches for the main work. - and an integrated CI like travis so that no merge can be done in a release branch without having everything green. Like that, if you target v1.1, you'll get the latest green version on API 1.1 :) Thierry

Jan. 23, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] OSSubprocess use

by Thierry Goubier

Le 23/01/2016 17:17, Mariano Martinez Peck a Ã©crit : > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Thierry Goubier > <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goubier@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Le 23/01/2016 15:44, Mariano Martinez Peck a Ã©crit : > > Hi Thierry, > > The Metacello answer here would be "it's up to you" hahahaha. I > don't > have a strong opinion. Most of the times I am in the similar > situation, > I tend to use fixed versions when the projects are really > coupled and > one cannot work without the other. And use #stable when they are > less > coupled and I would not die if that dependency is broken for > some time > until fixed. > > What would be the problem of using #stable? That I may release new > versions which may break the user API, or I may introduce bugs > that I > didn't discover before, etc etc. It won't be fun if I update > GitFileTree > and suddenly I cannot commit anymore. But at the same time, you > don't > expect a user to be updating GitFileTree in his image. In > addition, you > have a CI that will tell you immediately if the build fail or > your tests > failed. > > If you ask me, I think I would use fixed versions. Then, whenever I > release a new version, you give it a try, you test it, you try > it in the > CI, etc. If everything seems to work, then I would update your > conf and > point to new version. > > > Yes. What is interesting is I can just target the baseline of > OSSubprocess in that case, using that url > > github://marianopeck/OSSubprocess:v0.2.0/repository > > which is convenient. > Yes, I know, I implemented part of that support into gitfiletree urls (commit ids and tags don't work with git clone, of course). > Yes, and not only tags, what everything (commits, branches, etc). See > this post: > http://blog.yuriy.tymch.uk/2015/07/pharo-and-github-versioning-revision-2.h… > > This is the supported pattern: > > github://<username>/<projectname>[:<branch>|<tag>|<SHA>][/<path>] I was thinking of the wildcard support Dale implemented ;) Thierry > :) > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Jan. 23, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] OSSubprocess use

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com > wrote: > Le 23/01/2016 15:44, Mariano Martinez Peck a Ã©crit : > >> Hi Thierry, >> >> The Metacello answer here would be "it's up to you" hahahaha. I don't >> have a strong opinion. Most of the times I am in the similar situation, >> I tend to use fixed versions when the projects are really coupled and >> one cannot work without the other. And use #stable when they are less >> coupled and I would not die if that dependency is broken for some time >> until fixed. >> >> What would be the problem of using #stable? That I may release new >> versions which may break the user API, or I may introduce bugs that I >> didn't discover before, etc etc. It won't be fun if I update GitFileTree >> and suddenly I cannot commit anymore. But at the same time, you don't >> expect a user to be updating GitFileTree in his image. In addition, you >> have a CI that will tell you immediately if the build fail or your tests >> failed. >> >> If you ask me, I think I would use fixed versions. Then, whenever I >> release a new version, you give it a try, you test it, you try it in the >> CI, etc. If everything seems to work, then I would update your conf and >> point to new version. >> > > Yes. What is interesting is I can just target the baseline of OSSubprocess > in that case, using that url > > github://marianopeck/OSSubprocess:v0.2.0/repository > > which is convenient. > > Yes, and not only tags, what everything (commits, branches, etc). See this post: http://blog.yuriy.tymch.uk/2015/07/pharo-and-github-versioning-revision-2.h… This is the supported pattern: github://<username>/<projectname>[:<branch>|<tag>|<SHA>][/<path>] :) -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Jan. 23, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] OSSubprocess use

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Both, Hi Dale, > On Jan 23, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Le 23/01/2016 15:44, Mariano Martinez Peck a Ã©crit : >> Hi Thierry, >> >> The Metacello answer here would be "it's up to you" hahahaha. I don't >> have a strong opinion. Most of the times I am in the similar situation, >> I tend to use fixed versions when the projects are really coupled and >> one cannot work without the other. And use #stable when they are less >> coupled and I would not die if that dependency is broken for some time >> until fixed. >> >> What would be the problem of using #stable? That I may release new >> versions which may break the user API, or I may introduce bugs that I >> didn't discover before, etc etc. It won't be fun if I update GitFileTree >> and suddenly I cannot commit anymore. But at the same time, you don't >> expect a user to be updating GitFileTree in his image. In addition, you >> have a CI that will tell you immediately if the build fail or your tests >> failed. >> >> If you ask me, I think I would use fixed versions. Then, whenever I >> release a new version, you give it a try, you test it, you try it in the >> CI, etc. If everything seems to work, then I would update your conf and >> point to new version. > > Yes. What is interesting is I can just target the baseline of OSSubprocess in that case, using that url > > github://marianopeck/OSSubprocess:v0.2.0/repository > > which is convenient. > > Thierry Maybe soon enough we can find a way of integrating CI server test results for specific packages with Metacello and talk not about #stable, but #greenest. Green means tests have passed, but i think the connotation of green=young is common too, no? (viÃ±o verde). This doesn't protect against API changes, when the tests get changed to match the new API, but that implies versioning the API separately from the package so one can ask for #greenest #api=1.23.

Jan. 23, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] OSSubprocess use

by Thierry Goubier

Le 23/01/2016 15:44, Mariano Martinez Peck a Ã©crit : > Hi Thierry, > > The Metacello answer here would be "it's up to you" hahahaha. I don't > have a strong opinion. Most of the times I am in the similar situation, > I tend to use fixed versions when the projects are really coupled and > one cannot work without the other. And use #stable when they are less > coupled and I would not die if that dependency is broken for some time > until fixed. > > What would be the problem of using #stable? That I may release new > versions which may break the user API, or I may introduce bugs that I > didn't discover before, etc etc. It won't be fun if I update GitFileTree > and suddenly I cannot commit anymore. But at the same time, you don't > expect a user to be updating GitFileTree in his image. In addition, you > have a CI that will tell you immediately if the build fail or your tests > failed. > > If you ask me, I think I would use fixed versions. Then, whenever I > release a new version, you give it a try, you test it, you try it in the > CI, etc. If everything seems to work, then I would update your conf and > point to new version. Yes. What is interesting is I can just target the baseline of OSSubprocess in that case, using that url github://marianopeck/OSSubprocess:v0.2.0/repository which is convenient. Thierry

Jan. 23, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Add to Package

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:02 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > Le 23/1/16 15:14, Esteban A. Maringolo a Ã©crit : > >> 2016-01-23 4:48 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> in MC add to package should use a FastList because the logic right now is >>> really stupid. >>> >> I would also add the "add repo" to the package, with a list of the >> recently used repos. Or add the repo to a multiple number of packages. >> > > That too :) > >> >> Also...previously, when you typed in the text input, it would hide/filter out/gray the none matching ones and only let highlighted the ones matching what you typed. That doesn't seem to work anymore :( -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Jan. 23, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Use cases for methods with optional parameters

by stepharo

Le 23/1/16 03:38, Ben Coman a Ã©crit : > Sounds interesting, but my head hurts trying to think about this more > deeply :) > so I'm going to keep at a superficial level on this for now. > So just thinking out loud... > > If you have > mother1 := foo:(bar:zork:fork) > mother2 := foo:bar:(zork:bork:) I'm not sure that this is allows in the same class. We should check that in Python or ruby. > When you search for senders of #foo:bar: what do you get back and how > to display it? We should display every caller. > > Maybe a two level tree list with the option combinations appearing at > the top level and each of their senders at the second level, hiding > any top level items that don't have children. > foo:bar: > foo:bar:zork: > foo:bar:fork: > foor:bar:bork > foo:bar:zork:fork: > foo:bar:fork:zork: > foo:bar:zork:bork: > foo:bar:bork:zork: > > Actually, full any order combination probably becomes unwieldly. > Maybe there should be a constraint that optional arguments can be > skipped but when used must be used in sequence. > > cheers -ben > > btw, how do you mean relationship? I mean knowing the mother from the children > Do you mean using a Slots > mechanism like the relationship demo in the Flexible Object layouts > paper? no > https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00641716/file/Verw11b-OOSPLA11-FlexibleObjectLayou… > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:29 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> Ben >> >> We were thinking also about reflection. >> >> >> So may be we should introduce a relationship between the method and its >> actual implementation. >> >> Imagine that >> mother := foo:(bar:zork:) >> mother children >> foo:bar: >> foo:bar:zork: >> >> then >> senders (foo:bar:) >> => >> sender (motherOf(foo:bar:)) >> >> where motherOf is a back pointer from the expanded method into its mother >> But it means that method using foo:bar: should somehow "mention" that they >> will >> use motherOf (foo:bar:). >> >> >> >> Le 22/1/16 01:41, Ben Coman a Ã©crit : >> >>> I don't have any use cases right now, but I'll keep my eyes open. But >>> an example (that is maybe too basic to mess with) is the >>> #at:ifAbsent: pattern. For example, the following would be >>> "deleted" >>> >>> Dictionary>>.at: key >>> ^ self at: key ifAbsent: [self errorKeyNotFound: key] >>> >>> and you would only have.... >>> >>> Dictionary>>at: key ifAbsent: aBlock >>> <optional: ifAbsent default: [ self errorKeyNotFound: key]> >>> >>> The big in-Image example would be... >>> >>> TClass>> >>> subclass: aName >>> uses: aTraitCompositionOrArray >>> instanceVariableNames: someInstanceVariableNames >>> classVariableNames: someClassVariableNames >>> poolDictionaries: someSharedPoolNames >>> package: aCategory >>> <optional: uses default: {}> >>> <optional: instanceVariableNames default: ''> >>> <optional: classVariableNames default: ''> >>> <optional: poolDictionaries default:''> >>> <optional: package 'Unclassified'> >>> >>> Now I wonder about senders & implementers searchability, and if >>> "virtual" methods are generated in all combinations of optional >>> parameters and show up in the system browser list, but show the "main" >>> method as their source. >> >> >

Jan. 23, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Add to Package

by stepharo

Le 23/1/16 15:14, Esteban A. Maringolo a Ã©crit : > 2016-01-23 4:48 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >> Hi >> >> in MC add to package should use a FastList because the logic right now is >> really stupid. > I would also add the "add repo" to the package, with a list of the > recently used repos. Or add the repo to a multiple number of packages. That too :) > > Regards! > > Esteban A. Maringolo > >

Jan. 23, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] OSSubprocess use

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Hi Thierry, The Metacello answer here would be "it's up to you" hahahaha. I don't have a strong opinion. Most of the times I am in the similar situation, I tend to use fixed versions when the projects are really coupled and one cannot work without the other. And use #stable when they are less coupled and I would not die if that dependency is broken for some time until fixed. What would be the problem of using #stable? That I may release new versions which may break the user API, or I may introduce bugs that I didn't discover before, etc etc. It won't be fun if I update GitFileTree and suddenly I cannot commit anymore. But at the same time, you don't expect a user to be updating GitFileTree in his image. In addition, you have a CI that will tell you immediately if the build fail or your tests failed. If you ask me, I think I would use fixed versions. Then, whenever I release a new version, you give it a try, you test it, you try it in the CI, etc. If everything seems to work, then I would update your conf and point to new version. Cheers, On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking at OSSubprocess use as a requirement for GitFileTree and I > wonder if it is wise to list the dependency on OSSubprocess #stable or to > set to a specific version (v0.2)? > > Thanks, > > Thierry > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Jan. 23, 2016