| | let us know how you want that we proceed.
I will have to look at the changes themselves to determine which direction to go ... if the changes are isolated enough I'd be inclined to hide them in MetacelloPlatform ... that's where the platform uglies go ... If the changes are extensive, then I'd consider extracting out a filedirectory[1]/filesystem[2] utilities package (as was done for zinc and filetree).
I have the impression when I checked all the changes that they are minor but impacting (FS for example)
[1] https://github.com/dalehenrich/filetree/tree/pharo2.0/repository/MonticelloF... [2] https://github.com/dalehenrich/filetree/tree/pharo2.0/repository/MonticelloF... | | - for the tests (not version 10.32 that I cannot load - I will have a look
Metacello 1.0-beta.32 is the Metacello Preview version (not yet released anywhere) and porting that version stopped me cold last summer ... OSProcess was the final straw:)
Ok I could not load it because ProfStef was not found but I can retry.
| at profStef to make it 2.0 aware I guess that this is that the problem) | runCase refers to SystemNotifier | | versions accesssor => look really suspicious)
Yeah, that looks very suspicious and tests won't pass without that puppy:)
yes to me it looks really strange.
| 'Metacello-TestsTutorial-dkh.33'; | package: 'Metacello-ToolBox' with: | 'Metacello-ToolBox-dkh.130' | -> Metacello-ToolBox-MarcusDenker.135 | | here this is strange because the version of the toolbox in Pharo is | based on 135 134 133 132 131 127 126 .... so should we take another | version of the toolbox? | May be there was a mistake from our side to take a wrong branch.
You are on the right branch, Metacello-ToolBox-dkh.130 is okay (it's part of Metacello 1.0-beta.31.1.5) but Metacello-ToolBox-dkh.131 is part of the Preview release.
We do not use 130 but 135 so we are using the wrong branch. So do you have idea of experience we should run. I think that we should try to load metacello-Toolbox.130 and check the tests.