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.

That���s not true. Bug fixes do not break Pharo and shouldn���t 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. I���m 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