Am 28.05.2014 um 09:37 schrieb kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com>:
I dont see a big problem not having MetaRepoForPharo4 as public access , its not as if anyone will plant a pharo virus anytime soon and if a mistake is done, its not the end of the world , people can fix it if they find so annoying. Have there been any major issues so far with public access ?
I did not speak up for security. I just want to reduce annoying things. Accidental commits, hot fixes that break things, etc. There are a few things that one can do and annoy everyone else. Having a CI server in the middle filters the coarse grained problems that otherwise would be in the meta repo and would annoy people. And who is fixing it then? Norbert
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
On 28 May 2014, at 09:20, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
Am 28.05.2014 um 08:47 schrieb Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
On 28 May 2014, at 03:17, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, is the Meta Repo for Pharo 4 ready to use?
I've configured my jobs in the contribution ci server to run also for Pharo 4. But I can't copy the configuration to the meta repo for Pharo 4 to make it available in the Configuration Browser. Maybe some permissions are missing?
Yes, public write access was missing⦠I added that for now, but of course the question is: do we really want it to be writable by everyone?
No! And I would also want only configs to be put into the meta repo that build green. So basically only the pharo contributions CI should upload configs. But I can see that this might be too much effort and restriction.
Norbert
We just need a better infrastructure. Look at ATOM project. 1) contributions are made with pull requests 2) they have a dedicated apm tool for package submission/management. With monticello weâve achieved the best we can. And I guess we donât have enough resources to build and maintain new tools.
Uko