On 03/06/2018 10:51 AM, Cyril Ferlicot D. 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
Hi Dale,
As asked I start a new thread.
I can see some possible reasons I do not use Metacello locking feature. 1) I did not understand well enough what it was 2) We have a way to work different and mine might be incompatible with the lock feature 3) I just did not see how it could help me
To know which one is the reason I'll present you a little what I understood of the lock feature and how I usually work and you'll be able to advise me.
For the lock feature:
If I understood correctly it is a feature allowing to lock a certain version of a project in the Metacello registry. For example if I load Seaside 3.1, lock it and then install a project having Seaside 3.2 as dependency, the lock will block the update of Seaside. Okay, this is how a lock for a ConfigurationOf works, but the effect of a lock on a BaselineOf is that the FileTree directory where the BaselineOf is loaded from becomes the "locked version" ... in other words locking a BaselineOf is really a lock on a git directory and whatever SHA you happen to have checked out in the location will be used ... and this means that you can explicitily checkout a particular tag in the git repo and that is the "locked version"
Now how do I usually work:
Let's take the example of MaterialDesignLite that I maintain.
The master branch is a branch that should only contains stable MDL versions. Ideally I would like for each commit of this branch to be tagged with a semantic versionning tag.
The development happen in the development branch and new features are merged into this branch before making it to master.
In general I prefer to have stricter dependencies in master than in development. So the baseline in the development branch can be different than in master.
For all my projects I try to have a Jenkins building Pharo images for at least master and development, and potentially big feature branches before they are merged. The Jenkins also test the images. For development builds how do you specify/control the version of each of you 70 dependent projects for your Pharo build ...
The use case for using locks would say that you have 70 cloned git repositories that you are using for development purposes: i.e, you anticipate the possibility that you will need to make active changes to anyone of those 70 cloned git repositories as you do your development and I assume that you are always operating on the head of the development branch for each of these 70 cloned repositories ... Then you would simply lock all 70 projects to the filetree directory for the projects and when you decide to update to the latest development branch of a particular project you do a git pull in that clone and your next build will use the new version of that project ... When you make a change from within the image and commit a new version in one of the projects ... again the next build will use the new SHA and so on ... Once you've done a lock to a cloned git repo, you don't need to do fiddle with the BaselineOf, you simply manipulate the version that is present in the cloned git repo to change which SHA you want to use and all builds will simple use the "current SHA" for each of projects ... and since you've got active clones being used, it is simple to commit from your current working image ... I know that I've simplified some things here and I still don't see what you do as an alternative to what I am suggesting with locks ... but hopefully I've given you a bit clearer picture of what I imagine, you could/should be doing? Dale