Projects are slowly getting to live... and
they will change our lifes. In latest Pharo50 when you load a configuration from versionner or from the catalog and that you say to the system to create a group in nautilus (we should add a commandline handler too) you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;) Here I loaded the ConfigurationOfMetaBoardBoard and I got the following... There are certainly improvements to do but this is a nice rethinking of groups (in fact I always wanted them like that but nautilus got them differently). So when you are a nice guy using configuration you will automatically get your nice projects at the top and you can work fast. We can imagine that the groups could also get smarter and do a lot of automatic things for us. Stef
There is also the verbose way : (ConfigurationOfXXX project version: aVersion) loadAndCreateGroupInNautilus for people who does not like to clic everywhere. Franck Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:30:18 +0200 From: stepharo@free.fr To: pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org Subject: [Pharo-dev] Projects are slowly getting to live... and they will change our lifes. In latest Pharo50 when you load a configuration from versionner or from the catalog and that you say to the system to create a group in nautilus (we should add a commandline handler too) you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;) Here I loaded the ConfigurationOfMetaBoardBoard and I got the following... There are certainly improvements to do but this is a nice rethinking of groups (in fact I always wanted them like that but nautilus got them differently). So when you are a nice guy using configuration you will automatically get your nice projects at the top and you can work fast. We can imagine that the groups could also get smarter and do a lot of automatic things for us. Stef
stepharo wrote
you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;)
Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there is a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit :
> stepharo wrote
>> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;)
> Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful
> for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and
> puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there is
> a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases:
> - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of
> Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello
> - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay!
> - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view
Indeed.
We will see what we get at the end but may be something like
MyProject
AnotherProject
System
LowLevel
And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :)
I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the
package list is too long in the UI
is the wrong way to look at the problem.
Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of
knowledge. And the UI should shows both
depending on the view we want to get.
Stef
>
>
>
> -----
> Cheers,
> Sean
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843286.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for them. I really like this new approach great work. On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: > > > Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > > stepharo wrote > >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work > ;) > > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only > useful > > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat > and > > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there > is > > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of > > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view > > Indeed. > We will see what we get at the end but may be something like > > MyProject > AnotherProject > System > LowLevel > > And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :) > > I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the > package list is too long in the UI > is the wrong way to look at the problem. > Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of > knowledge. And the UI should shows both > depending on the view we want to get. > > Stef > > > > > > > > ----- > > Cheers, > > Sean > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843286.html > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > >
First it could be worse :) We cannot build a full ecosystem without capturing dependencies. Second we are (christophe) working since a year on the Cargo Package Manager. [Christophe knows many package manager (Java ruby and others).] With Cargo every single package expresses its dependencies instead of using external packages such as a Configuration. So we will see how it goes. Stef
One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for them.
I really like this new approach great work.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > stepharo wrote >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;) > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there is > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view
Indeed. We will see what we get at the end but may be something like
MyProject AnotherProject System LowLevel
And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :)
I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the package list is too long in the UI is the wrong way to look at the problem. Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of knowledge. And the UI should shows both depending on the view we want to get.
Stef > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843... > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
impressive you guys are busy non stop, I am feel so glad Pharo move forward so fast. No I did not mean to remove configurations but rather hide them, or group them together so they dont display together with other packages. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:01 AM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: > First it could be worse :) We cannot build a full ecosystem without > capturing dependencies. > > Second we are (christophe) working since a year on the Cargo Package > Manager. > [Christophe knows many package manager (Java ruby and others).] > With Cargo every single package expresses its dependencies instead of > using external packages such as a Configuration. > So we will see how it goes. > > Stef > > > One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines > pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would > be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for > them. > > I really like this new approach great work. > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: > >> >> >> Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : >> > stepharo wrote >> >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to >> work ;) >> > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only >> useful >> > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat >> and >> > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want >> there is >> > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: >> > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention >> of >> > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello >> > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! >> > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view >> >> Indeed. >> We will see what we get at the end but may be something like >> >> MyProject >> AnotherProject >> System >> LowLevel >> >> And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :) >> >> I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the >> package list is too long in the UI >> is the wrong way to look at the problem. >> Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of >> knowledge. And the UI should shows both >> depending on the view we want to get. >> >> Stef >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- >> > Cheers, >> > Sean >> > -- >> > View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843286.html >> > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >
It could be easily done, but in a ugly way to me. The only thing you know about a configuration package is that its name begins with 'ConfigurationOf', or it has some specific methods. There is no data above a package to know if it is a regular one or a configuration. Am I wrong ? If there is, it can be done in a better way. Franck From: kilon.alios@gmail.com Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:04:09 +0000 To: pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Projects are slowly getting to live... and impressive you guys are busy non stop, I am feel so glad Pharo move forward so fast. No I did not mean to remove configurations but rather hide them, or group them together so they dont display together with other packages. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:01 AM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: First it could be worse :) We cannot build a full ecosystem without capturing dependencies. Second we are (christophe) working since a year on the Cargo Package Manager. [Christophe knows many package manager (Java ruby and others).] With Cargo every single package expresses its dependencies instead of using external packages such as a Configuration. So we will see how it goes. Stef One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for them. I really like this new approach great work. On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > stepharo wrote >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;) > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there is > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view Indeed. We will see what we get at the end but may be something like MyProject AnotherProject System LowLevel And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :) I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the package list is too long in the UI is the wrong way to look at the problem. Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of knowledge. And the UI should shows both depending on the view we want to get. Stef > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843... > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
'ConfigurationOf' is currently a fairly strong convention. I think its okay to build such conventions into our tools. Maybe by default there can be a "smart folder" (i.e. having some filter) and a smart folder configuration option could be to hide any contained package from the top-level list. cheers -ben On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Franck Warlouzet <franck.warlouzet@hotmail.fr> wrote: > It could be easily done, but in a ugly way to me. The only thing you know > about a configuration package is that its name begins with > 'ConfigurationOf', or it has some specific methods. There is no data above a > package to know if it is a regular one or a configuration. Am I wrong ? If > there is, it can be done in a better way. > > Franck > > ________________________________ > From: kilon.alios@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:04:09 +0000 > To: pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Projects are slowly getting to live... and > > > impressive you guys are busy non stop, I am feel so glad Pharo move forward > so fast. > > No I did not mean to remove configurations but rather hide them, or group > them together so they dont display together with other packages. > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:01 AM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: > > First it could be worse :) We cannot build a full ecosystem without > capturing dependencies. > > Second we are (christophe) working since a year on the Cargo Package > Manager. > [Christophe knows many package manager (Java ruby and others).] > With Cargo every single package expresses its dependencies instead of using > external packages such as a Configuration. > So we will see how it goes. > > Stef > > > One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines > pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would > be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for > them. > > I really like this new approach great work. > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: > > > > Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : >> stepharo wrote >>> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work >>> ;) >> Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful >> for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and >> puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there >> is >> a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: >> - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of >> Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello >> - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! >> - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view > > Indeed. > We will see what we get at the end but may be something like > > MyProject > AnotherProject > System > LowLevel > > And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :) > > I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the > package list is too long in the UI > is the wrong way to look at the problem. > Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of > knowledge. And the UI should shows both > depending on the view we want to get. > > Stef >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843286.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> >> > > >
Ben Coman wrote
'ConfigurationOf' is currently a fairly strong convention. I think its okay to build such conventions into our tools.
+1. This seems in line with duck typing, an oft touted advantage of dynamic languages like Smalltalk. Although, for new projects you can subclass ConfigurationOf (an actual class). The problem is that when Metacello was brand new, one could not depend on any support classes preloaded into all supported platforms, so it made no assumptions and bootstrapped the entire library if necessary. ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
checking the name of the class should be enough, if you want to be more safe you could also check method names too. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:16 PM Franck Warlouzet < franck.warlouzet@hotmail.fr> wrote: > It could be easily done, but in a ugly way to me. The only thing you know > about a configuration package is that its name begins with > 'ConfigurationOf', or it has some specific methods. There is no data above > a package to know if it is a regular one or a configuration. Am I wrong ? > If there is, it can be done in a better way. > > Franck > > ------------------------------ > From: kilon.alios@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:04:09 +0000 > To: pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Projects are slowly getting to live... and > > > impressive you guys are busy non stop, I am feel so glad Pharo move > forward so fast. > > No I did not mean to remove configurations but rather hide them, or group > them together so they dont display together with other packages. > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:01 AM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: > > First it could be worse :) We cannot build a full ecosystem without > capturing dependencies. > > Second we are (christophe) working since a year on the Cargo Package > Manager. > [Christophe knows many package manager (Java ruby and others).] > With Cargo every single package expresses its dependencies instead of > using external packages such as a Configuration. > So we will see how it goes. > > Stef > > > One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines > pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would > be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for > them. > > I really like this new approach great work. > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote: > > > > Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > > stepharo wrote > >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work > ;) > > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only > useful > > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat > and > > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there > is > > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of > > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view > > Indeed. > We will see what we get at the end but may be something like > > MyProject > AnotherProject > System > LowLevel > > And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :) > > I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the > package list is too long in the UI > is the wrong way to look at the problem. > Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of > knowledge. And the UI should shows both > depending on the view we want to get. > > Stef > > > > > > > > ----- > > Cheers, > > Sean > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843286.html > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > >
Le 16/08/2015 22:48, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit :
One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for them.
This is what AltBrowser does. All configurations are in a category named 'Configurations' and all Baselines are in a category named 'Baselines'. Unless you really search for it, you won't see it.
I really like this new approach great work.
It certainly help. I have played a bit with extracting info from Configurations to classify automagically, but it doesn't work very well. Thierry
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > stepharo wrote >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;) > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there is > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view
Indeed. We will see what we get at the end but may be something like
MyProject AnotherProject System LowLevel
And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :)
I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the package list is too long in the UI is the wrong way to look at the problem. Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of knowledge. And the UI should shows both depending on the view we want to get.
Stef > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843... > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
yeap AltBrowser indeed does it, nice , time to give it another try:) On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:36 AM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 16/08/2015 22:48, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit :
One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for them.
This is what AltBrowser does. All configurations are in a category named 'Configurations' and all Baselines are in a category named 'Baselines'. Unless you really search for it, you won't see it.
I really like this new approach great work.
It certainly help.
I have played a bit with extracting info from Configurations to classify automagically, but it doesn't work very well.
Thierry
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > stepharo wrote >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;) > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there is > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view
Indeed. We will see what we get at the end but may be something like
MyProject AnotherProject System LowLevel
And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :)
I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the package list is too long in the UI is the wrong way to look at the problem. Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of knowledge. And the UI should shows both depending on the view we want to get.
Stef > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843...
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
2015-08-17 14:34 GMT+02:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com>:
yeap AltBrowser indeed does it, nice , time to give it another try:)
The thing I haven't done yet is turn a category of packages in a RB environment, to scope all commands and searches to that. Ah well, there is allways something to do ;) Thierry
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:36 AM Thierry Goubier < thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 16/08/2015 22:48, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit :
One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for them.
This is what AltBrowser does. All configurations are in a category named 'Configurations' and all Baselines are in a category named 'Baselines'. Unless you really search for it, you won't see it.
I really like this new approach great work.
It certainly help.
I have played a bit with extracting info from Configurations to classify automagically, but it doesn't work very well.
Thierry
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > stepharo wrote >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;) > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there is > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view
Indeed. We will see what we get at the end but may be something like
MyProject AnotherProject System LowLevel
And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :)
I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the package list is too long in the UI is the wrong way to look at the problem. Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of knowledge. And the UI should shows both depending on the view we want to get.
Stef > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843...
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
I tried your shortcuts for selecting a package, it highlights it but does not select it in Pharo 5. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-08-17 14:34 GMT+02:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com>:
yeap AltBrowser indeed does it, nice , time to give it another try:)
The thing I haven't done yet is turn a category of packages in a RB environment, to scope all commands and searches to that. Ah well, there is allways something to do ;)
Thierry
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:36 AM Thierry Goubier < thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 16/08/2015 22:48, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit :
One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for them.
This is what AltBrowser does. All configurations are in a category named 'Configurations' and all Baselines are in a category named 'Baselines'. Unless you really search for it, you won't see it.
I really like this new approach great work.
It certainly help.
I have played a bit with extracting info from Configurations to classify automagically, but it doesn't work very well.
Thierry
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > stepharo wrote >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;) > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there is > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view
Indeed. We will see what we get at the end but may be something like
MyProject AnotherProject System LowLevel
And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :)
I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the package list is too long in the UI is the wrong way to look at the problem. Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of knowledge. And the UI should shows both depending on the view we want to get.
Stef > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843...
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
2015-08-17 14:54 GMT+02:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com>:
I tried your shortcuts for selecting a package, it highlights it but does not select it in Pharo 5.
Ok, I'll have a look later tonight. Thierry
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-08-17 14:34 GMT+02:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com>:
yeap AltBrowser indeed does it, nice , time to give it another try:)
The thing I haven't done yet is turn a category of packages in a RB environment, to scope all commands and searches to that. Ah well, there is allways something to do ;)
Thierry
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:36 AM Thierry Goubier < thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 16/08/2015 22:48, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit :
One of the things that annoy me is how many Configurations and Baselines pollute the package space that are of little interest to the user. It would be nice to group them and filter them out of Nautilus unless user asks for them.
This is what AltBrowser does. All configurations are in a category named 'Configurations' and all Baselines are in a category named 'Baselines'. Unless you really search for it, you won't see it.
I really like this new approach great work.
It certainly help.
I have played a bit with extracting info from Configurations to classify automagically, but it doesn't work very well.
Thierry
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:34 PM stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Le 16/8/15 17:00, Sean P. DeNigris a écrit : > stepharo wrote >> you get a project (group) with all your packages together ready to work ;) > Cool! I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat and > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want there is > a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention of > Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view
Indeed. We will see what we get at the end but may be something like
MyProject AnotherProject System LowLevel
And people will not be overwhelmed by hundreds of nice packages. :)
I think that touching package contents under the assumption that the package list is too long in the UI is the wrong way to look at the problem. Packages are unit of deployment and we need Projects - unit of knowledge. And the UI should shows both depending on the view we want to get.
Stef > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Projects-are-slowly-getting-to-live-and-tp4843277p4843...
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive
at
Nabble.com. > > >
participants (6)
-
Ben Coman -
Dimitris Chloupis -
Franck Warlouzet -
Sean P. DeNigris -
stepharo -
Thierry Goubier