Hi Esteban, Moose 5 is still under development. We will likely reach a stable version within one or two months. In the meantime, it is true that there are some subcomponents that are stable (such as PetitParser), but we do not have yet the capacity and the organization to be able to release it individually easily. Perhaps once we will streamline the use of tooling around Metacello it will get easier. But, if people want to create a release of PetitParser, they are of course welcome to do it. Cheers, Doru On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 Jul 2014, at 14:12, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
Esteban wrote
This is a question for the moosers :) Why there is no copy (with stable version) in metarepo of ll configurations that are under the moose umbrella?
That's a question of effort vs results. Moose builds on top of Pharo, which has no stable.
Pharo has a stable version, 3. Bug fix releases are that: bug fixes, and does not break any compatibility.
There are newer builds of Pharo 3 containing bug-fixes. Moose has no Metacello way to identify which build it is running on so no way to create a stable. Moose is a large framework exercising large parts of the Pharo code base so almost all bug-fix releases impact Moose.
Thatâs not true. Bug fixes do not break Pharo and shouldnât break Moose. The fact that you do not declare stable versions of Moose is the reason why you cannot provide a loadable version in Pharo3. You just continued working and breaking backward compatibility. Iâm perfectly ok with that (in fact, I really like all the work around moose), but you should provide a stable version for Pharo 3, like you should provide a development version for Pharo 4.
The test suite of Pharo contains non-green tests so there is no easy way to track issues.
Again, not true. We released Pharo3 with no yellow/red tests.
Esteban
In addition there are of course the issues in Moose development itself.
Stephan
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"