I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon> I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only. FYI, Norbert
Hi. I though it was already done :) One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos. 2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
Am 07.07.2017 um 16:53 schrieb Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com>:
Hi.
I though it was already done :)
:P
One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
Uh, I've never seen "src". In Voyage and MongoTalk it is "mc" which I don't like. And I'm not a big friend of "src" either. But if it is the common rule I wouldn't object. Norbert
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>: I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon>
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
2017-07-07 17:11 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
:P
One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
Uh, I've never seen "src". In Voyage and MongoTalk it is "mc" which I don't like. And I'm not a big friend of "src" either. But if it is the common rule I wouldn't object.
In fact I saw it only in Pharo project :)
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
Hi.
I though it was already done :) One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github. In pharo-project I see * repository 3x * mc 3x * src 1x (not smalltalk code) And the rest of the github uses a variety of options * nothing - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages * repository - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;) - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing * mc - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg * src - quite common in other programming languages * packages - well, the folder does contain just packages Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor. Peter
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already. I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" . I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from. I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency? Tim Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote: Hi.
I though it was already done :) One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
In pharo-project I see
* repository 3x * mc 3x * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
* nothing - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages * repository - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;) - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing * mc - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg * src - quite common in other programming languages * packages - well, the folder does contain just packages
Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Peter
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.
yes, I agree⦠even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think âsrcâis better convention, now (thatâs why pharo is using it :P) Esteban
I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote: Hi.
I though it was already done :) One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
In pharo-project I see
* repository 3x * mc 3x * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
* nothing - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages * repository - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;) - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing * mc - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg * src - quite common in other programming languages * packages - well, the folder does contain just packages
Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Peter
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
We should write the convention somewhere too :) On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.
yes, I agree⦠even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think âsrcâis better convention, now (thatâs why pharo is using it :P)
Esteban
I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote: Hi.
I though it was already done :) One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
In pharo-project I see
* repository 3x * mc 3x * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
* nothing - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages * repository - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;) - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing * mc - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg * src - quite common in other programming languages * packages - well, the folder does contain just packages
Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Peter
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
We're using source, because you know in Smalltalk we don't like to invent abbreviations ;) On Jul 8, 2017 07:18, "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.
yes, I agree⦠even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think âsrcâis better convention, now (thatâs why pharo is using it :P)
Esteban
I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so
we get some consistency?
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote: Hi.
I though it was already done :) One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
In pharo-project I see
* repository 3x * mc 3x * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
* nothing - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages * repository - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by
filetree and metacello repos ;)
- Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing * mc - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg * src - quite common in other programming languages * packages - well, the folder does contain just packages
Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Peter
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to
read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
You are right and I like this the most. Will change any repo I see ð Norbert
Am 08.07.2017 um 14:54 schrieb Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli@gmail.com>:
We're using source, because you know in Smalltalk we don't like to invent abbreviations ;)
On Jul 8, 2017 07:18, "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.
yes, I agree⦠even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think âsrcâis better convention, now (thatâs why pharo is using it :P)
Esteban
I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote: Hi.
I though it was already done :) One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
In pharo-project I see
* repository 3x * mc 3x * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
* nothing - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages * repository - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;) - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing * mc - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg * src - quite common in other programming languages * packages - well, the folder does contain just packages
Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Peter
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
Should/could iceberg default to this convention when you create a repo (and you modify it if you want different?). It would help us get consistency as when you start out you just don't know Tim Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Jul 2017, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.
yes, I agree⦠even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think âsrcâis better convention, now (thatâs why pharo is using it :P)
Esteban
I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote: Hi.
I though it was already done :) One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
In pharo-project I see
* repository 3x * mc 3x * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
* nothing - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages * repository - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;) - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing * mc - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg * src - quite common in other programming languages * packages - well, the folder does contain just packages
Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Peter
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
Am 09.07.2017 um 12:15 schrieb Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works>:
Should/could iceberg default to this convention when you create a repo (and you modify it if you want different?).
Good idea but do we have a convention, yet? Norbert
It would help us get consistency as when you start out you just don't know
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Jul 2017, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.
yes, I agree⦠even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think âsrcâis better convention, now (thatâs why pharo is using it :P)
Esteban
I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote: Hi.
I though it was already done :) One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
In pharo-project I see
* repository 3x * mc 3x * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
* nothing - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages * repository - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;) - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing * mc - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg * src - quite common in other programming languages * packages - well, the folder does contain just packages
Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Peter
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.
In my PasswordCrypt package, I have src-c for the C sources and Makefile, and src-st for the Smalltalk code. Pierce
You probably cannot set it to complete read-only mode, but you can disallow in the project settings "Public write access" and then remove all contributors. -- Pavel 2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
And put big bold label that project was removed 2017-07-07 17:01 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com>:
You probably cannot set it to complete read-only mode, but you can disallow in the project settings "Public write access" and then remove all contributors.
-- Pavel
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
Hmm, public write access isn't checked and there are no contributors and yet I've committed to it in the past. Norbert
Am 07.07.2017 um 17:01 schrieb Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com>:
You probably cannot set it to complete read-only mode, but you can disallow in the project settings "Public write access" and then remove all contributors.
-- Pavel
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>: I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon>
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
I guess it is because owner of this project is the Pharo group and you are a member of it. -- Pavel 2017-07-07 17:12 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
Hmm, public write access isn't checked and there are no contributors and yet I've committed to it in the past.
Norbert
Am 07.07.2017 um 17:01 schrieb Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com>:
You probably cannot set it to complete read-only mode, but you can disallow in the project settings "Public write access" and then remove all contributors.
-- Pavel
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
Thanks, Norbert! Doru
On Jul 7, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
FYI,
Norbert
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Yesterday is a fact. Tomorrow is a possibility. Today is a challenge."
participants (10)
-
Denis Kudriashov -
Esteban Lorenzano -
Gabriel Cotelli -
Norbert Hartl -
Pavel Krivanek -
Peter Uhnak -
Pierce Ng -
Stephane Ducasse -
Tim Mackinnon -
Tudor Girba