On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 23/01/2016 15:44, Mariano Martinez Peck a écrit :
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.ht... This is the supported pattern: github://<username>/<projectname>[:<branch>|<tag>|<SHA>][/<path>] :) -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com