On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 09:12:55PM +0800, Ben Coman wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 1:34 AM, stepharong <stepharong@free.fr> wrote:
Nicolas Since a couple of years already we have one MetaRepo per version
MCSmalltalkhubRepository owner: 'Pharo' project: 'MetaRepoForPharo60' user: 'StephaneDucasse' password: '' MCSmalltalkhubRepository owner: 'Pharo' project: 'MetaRepoForPharo50' user: 'StephaneDucasse' password: '' MCSmalltalkhubRepository owner: 'Pharo' project: 'MetaRepoForPharo40' user: 'StephaneDucasse' password: '' MCSmalltalkhubRepository owner: 'Pharo' project: 'MetaRepoForPharo30' user: 'StephaneDucasse' password: ''
You see it is in place since Pharo 30 :).
We are working on a single place (web site) to publish packages but also the package metadata. The problem right now is that we cannot verify/publish a configuration without loading it.
The idea is to have kind of distributions of packages working and validated vs. a folder full of possible packages I hated so much the squeak catalog because 5 times on 6 nothing worked.
Stef
Just a thought for when the catalog validation is implemented, it would be good to report what the test coverage is, so this can be filtered on to distinguish from projects that are green just because they have a single test.
Also, (as time permits) it would be good to have a checkbox to filter out projects having no description, and be enabled by default.
There is no sane reason why description should be empty, so please just make it mandatory (and author/contact too (and possibly tags)). Re coverage: that would require that the user installing it actually understands how the metric was computed... e.g. call coverage != path coverage; also the usefulness and complexity of coverage will greatly depend on the used task. You can get 100% call coverage with some algo lib, but good luck getting there with UI. Likewise if the project is more diverse you can very easily skew it. Peter