- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Released versions in Pharo Bootstrap

by Dale Henrichs

On 03/05/2018 11:22 AM, Stephane Ducasse wrote: >> In an image where you want to use the dev_pharo7 for a project, you do a >> Metacello lock on github://xxxx/xxx:dev_pharo7/src BEFORE loading the >> project ... if there are multiple projects that need to all coordinate >> development then you follow the same convention and use a Metacello lock for >> each of the projects ... Executing expressions to lock projects is tedious >> to use and manage. > Do you have a text explaining what is a lock? > I do not understand the problems locks solve. The "Lock Command Reference" hopefully does the job[1]. Dale [1] https://github.com/Metacello/metacello/blob/master/docs/LockCommandReferenc…

March 5, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Released versions in Pharo Bootstrap

by Stephane Ducasse

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 8:07 PM, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > > > On 03/05/2018 09:07 AM, Guillermo Polito wrote: >> >> On the other side, there is the fact that Metacello baselines are so far >> nice to describe release project dependencies, but they are not so nice to >> describe subprojects/development dependencies that may get edited along with >> the parent project. Kind of what we used to do with #bleedingEdge. I feel >> this is a complex problem, that not even SBT or maven that are there since >> years are capable of solving nicely... Tode and Iceberg metacello >> integration try to solve this problem by "ignoring the dependency and using >> the loaded repository" but this may not be successful either... > > > I have not been following this thread in detail, but this comment leads me > to believe that the issue that you guys are running into has to do with > trying to ongoing distributed development across multiple projects and > multiple platform versions ... > > If so then I think that the moral equivalent of #bleedingEdge should be a > branch structure along the lines of: > > master branch --- the project release that is known to work on all > supported platform versions. > dev_pharo6 --- the current #bleedingEdge for Pharo6.0 > dev_pharo7 --- the current #bleedingEdge for Pharo7.0 for Pharo master is the current released version and dev the bleeding edge > > In an image where you want to use the dev_pharo7 for a project, you do a > Metacello lock on github://xxxx/xxx:dev_pharo7/src BEFORE loading the > project ... if there are multiple projects that need to all coordinate > development then you follow the same convention and use a Metacello lock for > each of the projects ... Executing expressions to lock projects is tedious > to use and manage. Do you have a text explaining what is a lock? I do not understand the problems locks solve. > > In tODE I started using project entries[1] that are downloaded to disk and > shared by multiple images that allow a developer to specify what > branch/tag/commit they are interested in using ... each image that is > started up in a "cluster" uses the project entry to do a Metacello lock on > the project "automagically"... if there is a series of projects where the > developer needs to use dev_pharo6 they can arrange to edit the project entry > to reflect the proper branches for the set of projects that need special > _development_ treatment ... these .ston files can be shared amongst groups > of developers ... of course once the local clones of these projects are on > the local disk, then it is up to the developer (or a set of scripts) to > periodically update to the latest development version of each of the > projects ... > > To share a specific configuration of development git repos, you need to know > that SHA anyway, so the image can produce a collection of project entries > with the SHA of the commit and those project entries can be included in a > bug report ... > > For Rowan[2], I am using a "load specification"[3], which is a second > generation project entry .... the Rowan work is still evolving ... > > Anyway, I think that putting the control of what is being used for > development completely in the developers hands and avoiding the need to edit > baselines is a good thing ... and I think that the idea of having > specifications that are shared by a cluster of images is a good way to go > ... > > Dale > > [1] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/blob/gh-pages/Seaside32.ston > [2] https://github.com/dalehenrich/Rowan > [3] https://github.com/dalehenrich/Rowan/blob/master/specs/Rowan.ston >

March 5, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Released versions in Pharo Bootstrap

by Dale Henrichs

That's fine ... but then it should be a separate thread ... Dale On 03/05/2018 11:16 AM, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > Dale > > no private emails please. > > stef > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Dale Henrichs > <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: >> Cyril, >> >> For development I tend to use Metacello locking instead of hard-wired >> dependencies in the BaselineOf and that works very well --- it completely >> avoids the need to edit a baseline for development purposes and this >> approach works really well for me ... perhaps we can discuss this in more >> detail in a separate thread or even private email? This all seems to be more >> complicated for you guys than has been my experience and of course you guys >> _appear_ to be completely ignoring the Metacello locking feature so I'm >> curious why ... >> >> Dale >> >> >> On 03/05/2018 08:02 AM, Cyril Ferlicot wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I still do not understand... Also I do not understand your usage of the >>> term "the merge". Can somebody give a **concrete** scenario? >>> >> I'll try >> For example the project MaterialDesignLite have two branches that are always >> here: >> - master >> - development >> Each commit on master is a stable release and end up with a tag as "v1.2.2". >> Since it's stable, BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite should depend only on fixed >> version of the dependencies. For example it should depend on >> MaterialDesignColor "v1.0.0". >> On the branch dev, we want to get the patches and possibly the minor >> versions of the dependencies automatically. In the baseline we then want to >> depend on MaterialDesignColor "v1.x.x". Thus, we follow the changes of >> MaterialDesignColor while it's not a major release. >> Because of this situation, BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite is different on the >> two branches. Later, if I want to merge development into master in order to >> release a new version, master will get the BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite with >> semantic versionning dependencies instead of the fixed dependencies. Before >> the release I'll need to change the Baseline to get fix dependencies once >> again. >> I hope I was clearer. :) >> >>> When you release a version, please do not move that version. You should >>> then create new versions, with new numbers and new code. But never touch old >>> versions with old numbers and old code. Like that I can download the same >>> old code using the same old number to get the old version whenever I want >>> :). >>> >>> You can try to do it with branches, tags, different repositories, or even >>> with zipfiles in mails. I don't care. Just don't modify releases and I'm >>> happy with it. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Cyril Ferlicot >> https://ferlicot.fr >> >>

March 5, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Released versions in Pharo Bootstrap

by Dale Henrichs

Denis, See the "Lock Command Reference"[1] .. As I mention in a subsequent message I think that the best approach is to have meta specification for the configuration of a development environment that includes a spec for what should be loaded and this spec needs to be something that individual developers can customize for there local dev environment ... then the Metacello BaselineOf is used for production loading purposes and the load specification is used for customizing a particular development environment which may include a mix of additional projects that all _under development_ together ... Dale [1] https://github.com/Metacello/metacello/blob/master/docs/LockCommandReferenc… On 03/05/2018 10:18 AM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > Hi Dale. > > Where to read about locking? > > 2018-03-05 18:57 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs > <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com > <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>>: > > Cyril, > > For development I tend to use Metacello locking instead of > hard-wired dependencies in the BaselineOf and that works very well > --- it completely avoids the need to edit a baseline for > development purposes and this approach works really well for me > ... perhaps we can discuss this in more detail in a separate > thread or even private email? This all seems to be more > complicated for you guys than has been my experience and of course > you guys _appear_ to be completely ignoring the Metacello locking > feature so I'm curious why ... > > Dale > > > On 03/05/2018 08:02 AM, Cyril Ferlicot wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Guillermo Polito >> <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com <mailto:guillermopolito@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> >> I still do not understand... Also I do not understand your >> usage of the term "the merge". Can somebody give a >> **concrete** scenario? >> >> I'll try >> For example the project MaterialDesignLite have two branches that >> are always here: >> - master >> - development >> Each commit on master is a stable release and end up with a tag >> as "v1.2.2". Since it's stable, BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite >> should depend only on fixed version of the dependencies. For >> example it should depend on MaterialDesignColor "v1.0.0". >> On the branch dev, we want to get the patches and possibly the >> minor versions of the dependencies automatically. In the baseline >> we then want to depend on MaterialDesignColor "v1.x.x". Thus, we >> follow the changes of MaterialDesignColor while it's not a major >> release. >> Because of this situation, BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite is >> different on the two branches. Later, if I want to merge >> development into master in order to release a new version, master >> will get the BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite with semantic >> versionning dependencies instead of the fixed dependencies. >> Before the release I'll need to change the Baseline to get fix >> dependencies once again. >> I hope I was clearer. :) >> >> When you release a version, please do not move that version. >> You should then create new versions, with new numbers and new >> code. But never touch old versions with old numbers and old >> code. Like that I can download the same old code using the >> same old number to get the old version whenever I want :). >> >> You can try to do it with branches, tags, different >> repositories, or even with zipfiles in mails. I don't care. >> Just don't modify releases and I'm happy with it. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cyril Ferlicot >> https://ferlicot.fr > >

March 5, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Released versions in Pharo Bootstrap

by Stephane Ducasse

Dale no private emails please. stef On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > Cyril, > > For development I tend to use Metacello locking instead of hard-wired > dependencies in the BaselineOf and that works very well --- it completely > avoids the need to edit a baseline for development purposes and this > approach works really well for me ... perhaps we can discuss this in more > detail in a separate thread or even private email? This all seems to be more > complicated for you guys than has been my experience and of course you guys > _appear_ to be completely ignoring the Metacello locking feature so I'm > curious why ... > > Dale > > > On 03/05/2018 08:02 AM, Cyril Ferlicot wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >> I still do not understand... Also I do not understand your usage of the >> term "the merge". Can somebody give a **concrete** scenario? >> > I'll try > For example the project MaterialDesignLite have two branches that are always > here: > - master > - development > Each commit on master is a stable release and end up with a tag as "v1.2.2". > Since it's stable, BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite should depend only on fixed > version of the dependencies. For example it should depend on > MaterialDesignColor "v1.0.0". > On the branch dev, we want to get the patches and possibly the minor > versions of the dependencies automatically. In the baseline we then want to > depend on MaterialDesignColor "v1.x.x". Thus, we follow the changes of > MaterialDesignColor while it's not a major release. > Because of this situation, BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite is different on the > two branches. Later, if I want to merge development into master in order to > release a new version, master will get the BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite with > semantic versionning dependencies instead of the fixed dependencies. Before > the release I'll need to change the Baseline to get fix dependencies once > again. > I hope I was clearer. :) > >> >> When you release a version, please do not move that version. You should >> then create new versions, with new numbers and new code. But never touch old >> versions with old numbers and old code. Like that I can download the same >> old code using the same old number to get the old version whenever I want >> :). >> >> You can try to do it with branches, tags, different repositories, or even >> with zipfiles in mails. I don't care. Just don't modify releases and I'm >> happy with it. >> >> >> > > > -- > Cyril Ferlicot > https://ferlicot.fr > >

March 5, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Released versions in Pharo Bootstrap

by Dale Henrichs

On 03/05/2018 09:07 AM, Guillermo Polito wrote: > On the other side, there is the fact that Metacello baselines are so > far nice to describe release project dependencies, but they are not so > nice to describe subprojects/development dependencies that may get > edited along with the parent project. Kind of what we used to do with > #bleedingEdge. I feel this is a complex problem, that not even SBT or > maven that are there since years are capable of solving nicely... Tode > and Iceberg metacello integration try to solve this problem by > "ignoring the dependency and using the loaded repository" but this may > not be successful either... I have not been following this thread in detail, but this comment leads me to believe that the issue that you guys are running into has to do with trying to ongoing distributed development across multiple projects and multiple platform versions ... If so then I think that the moral equivalent of #bleedingEdge should be a branch structure along the lines of: Â master branch --- the project release that is known to work on all supported platform versions. Â dev_pharo6Â Â Â Â Â --- the current #bleedingEdge for Pharo6.0 Â dev_pharo7Â Â Â Â Â --- the current #bleedingEdge for Pharo7.0 In an image where you want to use the dev_pharo7 for a project, you do a Metacello lock on github://xxxx/xxx:dev_pharo7/src BEFORE loading the project ... if there are multiple projects that need to all coordinate development then you follow the same convention and use a Metacello lock for each of the projects ... Executing expressions to lock projects is tedious to use and manage. In tODE I started using project entries[1] that are downloaded to disk and shared by multiple images that allow a developer to specify what branch/tag/commit they are interested in using ... each image that is started up in a "cluster" uses the project entry to do a Metacello lock on the project "automagically"... if there is a series of projects where the developer needs to use dev_pharo6 they can arrange to edit the project entry to reflect the proper branches for the set of projects that need special _development_ treatment ... these .ston files can be shared amongst groups of developers ... of course once the local clones of these projects are on the local disk, then it is up to the developer (or a set of scripts) to periodically update to the latest development version of each of the projects ... To share a specific configuration of development git repos, you need to know that SHA anyway, so the image can produce a collection of project entries with the SHA of the commit and those project entries can be included in a bug report ... For Rowan[2], I am using a "load specification"[3], which is a second generation project entry .... the Rowan work is still evolving ... Anyway, I think that putting the control of what is being used for development completely in the developers hands and avoiding the need to edit baselines is a good thing ... and I think that the idea of having specifications that are shared by a cluster of images is a good way toÂ go ... Dale [1] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/blob/gh-pages/Seaside32.ston [2] https://github.com/dalehenrich/Rowan [3] https://github.com/dalehenrich/Rowan/blob/master/specs/Rowan.ston

March 5, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Released versions in Pharo Bootstrap

by Denis Kudriashov

Hi Dale. Where to read about locking? 2018-03-05 18:57 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com>: > Cyril, > > For development I tend to use Metacello locking instead of hard-wired > dependencies in the BaselineOf and that works very well --- it completely > avoids the need to edit a baseline for development purposes and this > approach works really well for me ... perhaps we can discuss this in more > detail in a separate thread or even private email? This all seems to be > more complicated for you guys than has been my experience and of course you > guys _appear_ to be completely ignoring the Metacello locking feature so > I'm curious why ... > > Dale > > On 03/05/2018 08:02 AM, Cyril Ferlicot wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Guillermo Polito < > guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I still do not understand... Also I do not understand your usage of the >> term "the merge". Can somebody give a **concrete** scenario? >> >> I'll try > For example the project MaterialDesignLite have two branches that are > always here: > - master > - development > Each commit on master is a stable release and end up with a tag as > "v1.2.2". Since it's stable, BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite should depend > only on fixed version of the dependencies. For example it should depend on > MaterialDesignColor "v1.0.0". > On the branch dev, we want to get the patches and possibly the minor > versions of the dependencies automatically. In the baseline we then want to > depend on MaterialDesignColor "v1.x.x". Thus, we follow the changes of > MaterialDesignColor while it's not a major release. > Because of this situation, BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite is different on > the two branches. Later, if I want to merge development into master in > order to release a new version, master will get the > BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite with semantic versionning dependencies instead > of the fixed dependencies. Before the release I'll need to change the > Baseline to get fix dependencies once again. > I hope I was clearer. :) > > >> When you release a version, please do not move that version. You should >> then create new versions, with new numbers and new code. But never touch >> old versions with old numbers and old code. Like that I can download the >> same old code using the same old number to get the old version whenever I >> want :). >> >> You can try to do it with branches, tags, different repositories, or even >> with zipfiles in mails. I don't care. Just don't modify releases and I'm >> happy with it. >> >> >> >> > > -- > Cyril Ferlicot > https://ferlicot.fr > > >

March 5, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Released versions in Pharo Bootstrap

by Dale Henrichs

On 03/05/2018 08:48 AM, Stephan Eggermont wrote: > tesonep(a)gmail.com > <tesonep(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> i have seen in the latest version of Pharo baselines pointing to >> "floating" versions. A version that is not fixed. I want to know why this >> is like that? > Because that is the way it should be? It is hand-edited, so repeatable > builds are not the goal, just working software. Repeatable builds come from > recording what you loaded in what order. Repeatable builds with fixed > dependency versions don't help you with working software, as they block > your dependencies from getting patched. Never depend on hard-coded versions > of anything you don't control yourself. See the 5D paper > > Stephan Eggermont Stephan, For this approach to work it is important that people not make a practice of committing api-breaking changes and by definition each new release of pharo breaks the fundamental api ... I've been able to survive in this universe with Metacello over the years, because I make a point of ensuring that the latest version of Metacello works on all supported platform versions and my observation has been that most Pharo projects ignore older versions of pharo for as long as they can get away with it and this becomes the source of so many issues I've seen ... With github and travis-ci it is practical to support projects on multiple platform versions ... if you want to ... this approach means that when you move to a new platform version you have to use packaging to isolate your version-specific changes and you probably have to refactor your implementation to be able to manage these version-specific changes ... only when you make api-breaking changes is it necessary to start new branches or use a series of tags ... Dale

March 5, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Released versions in Pharo Bootstrap

by Stephan Eggermont

Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > It is clear that we need both baselines for that case. > But because we will move Calypso to Pharo repo I think it is easy to manage > strong versions directly in Pharo loading script for now (in #loadCalypso > method). Easy for now, yes. And also a bad example for others to follow. And something that doesn't scale. Where is the increased modularity going to come from if we still manage everything as a monorepo? Stephan

March 5, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Released versions in Pharo Bootstrap

by Dale Henrichs

Cyril, For development I tend to use Metacello locking instead of hard-wired dependencies in the BaselineOf and that works very well --- it completely avoids the need to edit a baseline for development purposes and this approach works really well for me ... perhaps we can discuss this in more detail in a separate thread or even private email? This all seems to be more complicated for you guys than has been my experience and of course you guys _appear_ to be completely ignoring the Metacello locking feature so I'm curious why ... Dale On 03/05/2018 08:02 AM, Cyril Ferlicot wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Guillermo Polito > <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com <mailto:guillermopolito@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > I still do not understand... Also I do not understand your usage > of the term "the merge". Can somebody give a **concrete** scenario? > > I'll try > For example the project MaterialDesignLite have two branches that are > always here: > - master > - development > Each commit on master is a stable release and end up with a tag as > "v1.2.2". Since it's stable, BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite should > depend only on fixed version of the dependencies. For example it > should depend on MaterialDesignColor "v1.0.0". > On the branch dev, we want to get the patches and possibly the minor > versions of the dependencies automatically. In the baseline we then > want to depend on MaterialDesignColor "v1.x.x". Thus, we follow the > changes of MaterialDesignColor while it's not a major release. > Because of this situation, BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite is different > on the two branches. Later, if I want to merge development into master > in order to release a new version, master will get the > BaselineOfMaterialDesignLite with semantic versionning dependencies > instead of the fixed dependencies. Before the release I'll need to > change the Baseline to get fix dependencies once again. > I hope I was clearer. :) > > When you release a version, please do not move that version. You > should then create new versions, with new numbers and new code. > But never touch old versions with old numbers and old code. Like > that I can download the same old code using the same old number to > get the old version whenever I want :). > > You can try to do it with branches, tags, different repositories, > or even with zipfiles in mails. I don't care. Just don't modify > releases and I'm happy with it. > > > > > -- > Cyril Ferlicot > https://ferlicot.fr

March 5, 2018