>
>
> 2010/1/11 Miguel Enrique Cob� Martinez <
miguel.coba@gmail.com>
> � � � � El lun, 11-01-2010 a las 22:06 +0000, Michael Roberts
> � � � � escribi�:
> � � � � > I'm afraid i've got rather lost in this thread.
> � � � � >
> � � � � > >> �As an after thought after seeing other posts on the
> � � � � issue, I think
> � � � � > >> �more �than �a �generic �warning �that "may �break �the
> � � � � �image" �the
> � � � � > >> �Monticello comments and/or a �simple explanation on the
> � � � � reasons and
> � � � � > >> �affected �packages *before* �the update �starts with
> � � � � �an �option to
> � � � � > >> �proceed or abort is much in need.
> � � � � > >>
> � � � � > >>
> � � � � > >> �Yes, maybe. �Then thing �is that I �am not �sure in
> � � � � which �cases it
> � � � � > >> would break. Only �in overrides? How many overrides �do
> � � � � we have from
> � � � � > >> external pacakges in Core stuff? �I have no idea.
> � � � � > >
> � � � � >
> � � � � > I think given that we are at a very early stage of building
> � � � � the Pharo
> � � � � > image from PharoCore i.e Metacello just coming on etc, we
> � � � � should
> � � � � > simplify the concerns above.
> � � � � >
> � � � � > Basically we should only build Pharo on top of a known
> � � � � PharoCore. Just
> � � � � > because packages don't contain overrides does not imply that
> � � � � moving
> � � � � > the core image will break packages on top. Don't offer such
> � � � � a feature,
> � � � � > and then worry about what will happen.
> � � � � >
> � � � � > Part of the Pharo build script should set a flag that
> � � � � prevents system
> � � � � > update in the short term. Longer term we should switch the
> � � � � available
> � � � � > update mechanism to #loadLatest on the
> � � � � ConfigurationOfPharo. �There is
> � � � � > then one System update feature, but different implementation
> � � � � in Pharo
> � � � � > vs PharoCore.
> � � � � >
>
>
> � � � � So the vote is for disabled for now?
>
>
>
> Yes. And this is cool because we have to put focus in to make Pharo
> images more stable. We cannot introduce such a feature when we are not
> even stable with Dev images. Let's go step by step. Once we get stable
> Dev images, good processes and package managment, then we can review
> this stuff about updating.
>
>
> Do you want to do it ? �;)
>