On 08 Jun 2016, at 11:13, Andrei Chis <chisvasileandrei@gmail.com> wrote:

Just a quick comment. Did you edited the configurations and their dependencies by hand? Since some time I never update them by hand, only use versioner to generate a new version for ConfigurationOfGToolkitCore and automatically also update all dependencies to all other configurations that I need. Then I make just one issue to integrate ConfigurationOfGToolkitCore that also loads/updates all other configurations. I know this is still not ideal but it's significant less work than what you described.

which is why I made that tool that -almost- no one uses :) Esteban

One of the reasons that Versionner may not have been supporting baselines is that the MetacelloToolBox support for BaselineOf was not up to snuff. A couple of weeks ago I added additional support for updating a BaselineOf[1]. If additional features/support is needed from the MetacelloToolBox level I would be glad to add whatever is needed ... Dale [1] https://github.com/dalehenrich/metacello-work/issues/395 On 06/08/2016 04:57 AM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:

Andrei Chis wrote

...

Did you edited the configurations and their dependencies by hand? Since some time I never update them by hand, only use versioner [Reminder]: Anyone using Git (like me for all my personal projects) can not use Versionner because it does not handle Baselines. This will become more and more of a problem.

----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Story-of-one-small-fix-tp4899815p4899885.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2016-06-08 19:40 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:

***THANKS*** Pavel.

Yes it is the best way to make sure that nobody wants to work at this level. We discussed this problem during the last board meeting. This is why I proposed the following process.

When the core Pharo developers are in need to change a package they should do it without updating the external package configurations.

And the external developers should check and merge the changes from the Pharo repo and when they want

release a new configuration that we will integrate.

But the problem is that for bootstrap we need updated configurations (or somenting like it) because we want to load all system correctly from them. So even for such small changes we need to update them somehow. Moreover, we want to test incomming slices with bootstrap. That means that for every new slice we need to create temporary configurations and run bootstrap-load process on them. So it is clear that we need configurations that will be created and managed automatically and will enable swapping of repositories. We had already several discussions on this theme and from my point of view we need: - own separate repository for every semi-external project. So something like fork for Pharo. With GIT it will be natural, for the management by MC it will be only a temporary step. - own configuration that will be aware only of Pharo and will be fully automatically managed Pharo developers will provide only slices and will not care about configuraitons at all. It will mean that maintainers of semi-external projects will loose part of the controll and will need to care of sync with own development repository but it is nothing new. Even now Pharo makes own forks of some projects but it is not so visible.

For me this is clear (for example for the icon: fix) I do not do anything if this is with the process you describe because it is insane.

In fact fixing this process is part of the job description for your position.

It was

- republishing automatically changes and the configuration

- working on package validation (making sure that the catalog does not get full of not working project)

- bootstrap :)

Of course I am aware of it :-) -- Pavel

Stef

Le 8/6/16 à 11:05, Pavel Krivanek a écrit :

Hi,

we had in the system circular package dependency between Catalog and GTools and we decided to solve it by simple moving of one method from one package to other one. However, these two packages are external packages managed by configurations. That means that we needed move the method, save dirty packages and fix both configurations.

For the catalog we have very simple configuration because it manages only one package (and dependency on STON). ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore was more complicated because the repository already included newer development version of the modified package so we needed to merge. But because we are not the maintainers, we cannot know if the change in this package is not requiring changes in other packages provided by the configuration. Well, the new configurations were prepared and copied into inbox. We needed to create next two issues for updating of the configuration in the system. We did it and integrated all together in one update. But that is not all... ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore is used by three other configurations ( ConfigurationOfGTPlaygroundCore, ConfigurationOfGToolkitCore and ConfgurationOfGTDebugger) that specify number of ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore version. In ideal state you should create new versions of the configurations but that means that you need to modify configurations of all other configurations that use them. It is simpler just modify current configuration and upgrade required version number of GTInspectorCore. That means to create three next issues, each for one configuration, create new configuration versions (and check and merge the newer versions in the home repository if needed), copy them to the inbox, wait for the review and hope that during integration the Integrator will not create new versions of some packages. If yes, you need to update configurations again.

So at the end you have at least six issues because you wanted to change package for one method that has still the same content and is placed in the same class... And it can be worse. Both of these external projects have public access to the repository and are managed the same way (not mixing MC with GIT).

As you see, it is crazy and unmaintainable.

It is clear that we need to change the process. We need to discuss it deeply and some of the results may touch maintainers of the external projects integrated in Pharo but please keep in mind that the current system is clearly bad.

Cheers, -- Pavel

We cannot do that right now. I hope that we will replace configurations with Cargo. -- Pavel 2016-06-09 10:03 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com>:

So does we all agree to commit fixes for external packages by slices without new configs?

2016-06-09 9:42 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com>:

...

2016-06-08 19:40 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:

...

***THANKS*** Pavel.

Yes it is the best way to make sure that nobody wants to work at this level. We discussed this problem during the last board meeting. This is why I proposed the following process.

When the core Pharo developers are in need to change a package they should do it without updating the external package configurations.

And the external developers should check and merge the changes from the Pharo repo and when they want

release a new configuration that we will integrate.

But the problem is that for bootstrap we need updated configurations (or somenting like it) because we want to load all system correctly from them. So even for such small changes we need to update them somehow. Moreover, we want to test incomming slices with bootstrap. That means that for every new slice we need to create temporary configurations and run bootstrap-load process on them.

So it is clear that we need configurations that will be created and managed automatically and will enable swapping of repositories. We had already several discussions on this theme and from my point of view we need:

- own separate repository for every semi-external project. So something like fork for Pharo. With GIT it will be natural, for the management by MC it will be only a temporary step.

- own configuration that will be aware only of Pharo and will be fully automatically managed

Pharo developers will provide only slices and will not care about configuraitons at all. It will mean that maintainers of semi-external projects will loose part of the controll and will need to care of sync with own development repository but it is nothing new. Even now Pharo makes own forks of some projects but it is not so visible.

...

For me this is clear (for example for the icon: fix) I do not do anything if this is with the process you describe because it is insane.

In fact fixing this process is part of the job description for your position.

It was

- republishing automatically changes and the configuration

- working on package validation (making sure that the catalog does not get full of not working project)

- bootstrap :)

Of course I am aware of it :-)

-- Pavel

...

Stef

Le 8/6/16 à 11:05, Pavel Krivanek a écrit :

Hi,

we had in the system circular package dependency between Catalog and GTools and we decided to solve it by simple moving of one method from one package to other one. However, these two packages are external packages managed by configurations. That means that we needed move the method, save dirty packages and fix both configurations.

For the catalog we have very simple configuration because it manages only one package (and dependency on STON). ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore was more complicated because the repository already included newer development version of the modified package so we needed to merge. But because we are not the maintainers, we cannot know if the change in this package is not requiring changes in other packages provided by the configuration. Well, the new configurations were prepared and copied into inbox. We needed to create next two issues for updating of the configuration in the system. We did it and integrated all together in one update. But that is not all... ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore is used by three other configurations ( ConfigurationOfGTPlaygroundCore, ConfigurationOfGToolkitCore and ConfgurationOfGTDebugger) that specify number of ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore version. In ideal state you should create new versions of the configurations but that means that you need to modify configurations of all other configurations that use them. It is simpler just modify current configuration and upgrade required version number of GTInspectorCore. That means to create three next issues, each for one configuration, create new configuration versions (and check and merge the newer versions in the home repository if needed), copy them to the inbox, wait for the review and hope that during integration the Integrator will not create new versions of some packages. If yes, you need to update configurations again.

So at the end you have at least six issues because you wanted to change package for one method that has still the same content and is placed in the same class... And it can be worse. Both of these external projects have public access to the repository and are managed the same way (not mixing MC with GIT).

As you see, it is crazy and unmaintainable.

It is clear that we need to change the process. We need to discuss it deeply and some of the results may touch maintainers of the external projects integrated in Pharo but please keep in mind that the current system is clearly bad.

Cheers, -- Pavel

Cargo will not fix the dependency mess. maybe it will be easy the process, but it will not fix the real problem: we have a system that’s not made in a modular way. We are working hard to make it possible, but until we finish that there will be fixes that will touch more than one “module” and then it will be a problem also with Cargo (a dependency manager does not fixes couples dependencies, just describes them). Esteban

On 09 Jun 2016, at 10:58, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com> wrote:

We cannot do that right now. I hope that we will replace configurations with Cargo.

-- Pavel

2016-06-09 10:03 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com <mailto:dionisiydk@gmail.com>>: So does we all agree to commit fixes for external packages by slices without new configs?

2016-06-09 9:42 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com <mailto:pavel.krivanek@gmail.com>>:

2016-06-08 19:40 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>>: ***THANKS*** Pavel.

Yes it is the best way to make sure that nobody wants to work at this level. We discussed this problem during the last board meeting. This is why I proposed the following process.

When the core Pharo developers are in need to change a package they should do it without updating the external package configurations. And the external developers should check and merge the changes from the Pharo repo and when they want release a new configuration that we will integrate.

But the problem is that for bootstrap we need updated configurations (or somenting like it) because we want to load all system correctly from them. So even for such small changes we need to update them somehow. Moreover, we want to test incomming slices with bootstrap. That means that for every new slice we need to create temporary configurations and run bootstrap-load process on them.

So it is clear that we need configurations that will be created and managed automatically and will enable swapping of repositories. We had already several discussions on this theme and from my point of view we need:

- own separate repository for every semi-external project. So something like fork for Pharo. With GIT it will be natural, for the management by MC it will be only a temporary step.

- own configuration that will be aware only of Pharo and will be fully automatically managed

Pharo developers will provide only slices and will not care about configuraitons at all. It will mean that maintainers of semi-external projects will loose part of the controll and will need to care of sync with own development repository but it is nothing new. Even now Pharo makes own forks of some projects but it is not so visible.

For me this is clear (for example for the icon: fix) I do not do anything if this is with the process you describe because it is insane. In fact fixing this process is part of the job description for your position.

It was - republishing automatically changes and the configuration

- working on package validation (making sure that the catalog does not get full of not working project) - bootstrap :)

Of course I am aware of it :-)

-- Pavel

Stef

Le 8/6/16 à 11:05, Pavel Krivanek a écrit :

...

Hi,

we had in the system circular package dependency between Catalog and GTools and we decided to solve it by simple moving of one method from one package to other one. However, these two packages are external packages managed by configurations. That means that we needed move the method, save dirty packages and fix both configurations.

For the catalog we have very simple configuration because it manages only one package (and dependency on STON). ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore was more complicated because the repository already included newer development version of the modified package so we needed to merge. But because we are not the maintainers, we cannot know if the change in this package is not requiring changes in other packages provided by the configuration. Well, the new configurations were prepared and copied into inbox. We needed to create next two issues for updating of the configuration in the system. We did it and integrated all together in one update. But that is not all... ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore is used by three other configurations (ConfigurationOfGTPlaygroundCore, ConfigurationOfGToolkitCore and ConfgurationOfGTDebugger) that specify number of ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore version. In ideal state you should create new versions of the configurations but that means that you need to modify configurations of all other configurations that use them. It is simpler just modify current configuration and upgrade required version number of GTInspectorCore. That means to create three next issues, each for one configuration, create new configuration versions (and check and merge the newer versions in the home repository if needed), copy them to the inbox, wait for the review and hope that during integration the Integrator will not create new versions of some packages. If yes, you need to update configurations again.

So at the end you have at least six issues because you wanted to change package for one method that has still the same content and is placed in the same class... And it can be worse. Both of these external projects have public access to the repository and are managed the same way (not mixing MC with GIT).

As you see, it is crazy and unmaintainable.

It is clear that we need to change the process. We need to discuss it deeply and some of the results may touch maintainers of the external projects integrated in Pharo but please keep in mind that the current system is clearly bad.

Cheers, -- Pavel

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com> wrote:

2016-06-08 19:40 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:

...

***THANKS*** Pavel.

Yes it is the best way to make sure that nobody wants to work at this level. We discussed this problem during the last board meeting. This is why I proposed the following process.

When the core Pharo developers are in need to change a package they should do it without updating the external package configurations.

And the external developers should check and merge the changes from the Pharo repo and when they want

release a new configuration that we will integrate.

But the problem is that for bootstrap we need updated configurations (or somenting like it) because we want to load all system correctly from them. So even for such small changes we need to update them somehow. Moreover, we want to test incomming slices with bootstrap. That means that for every new slice we need to create temporary configurations and run bootstrap-load process on them.

So it is clear that we need configurations that will be created and managed automatically and will enable swapping of repositories. We had already several discussions on this theme and from my point of view we need:

- own separate repository for every semi-external project. So something like fork for Pharo. With GIT it will be natural, for the management by MC it will be only a temporary step.

- own configuration that will be aware only of Pharo and will be fully automatically managed

Pharo developers will provide only slices and will not care about configuraitons at all. It will mean that maintainers of semi-external projects will loose part of the controll and will need to care of sync with own development repository but it is nothing new. Even now Pharo makes own forks of some projects but it is not so visible.

I have a mental block to contributing to part of Pharo maintained in external repositories. Maybe its unreasonable, but it just *feels* like too much friction. If I've worked on an issue, I. just. want. to. submit. it! With Slices its dead simple - so I stick to those (although I've been a bit unproductive of late). Maybe some middle ground is to still use Configurations, but you add the Configurations to a Slice and the individual packages are auto added. Then the Slice, Configurations and individual packages are all committed to inbox. Similar to the way integration now copies packages from the Inbox to "internal" Main repositories, those packages & configurations homed in other repositories are pushed there as part of integration. So the workflow would be the same for internal and external repositories - the only change being the target repository. Any other development going on in external repository would be considered a feature branch, an would be incumbent on them to merge in changes added to the external repository by TheIntegrator before they submit their branch to Inbox for integration. The other thing that would help is the Configuration being marked dirty when child Package becomes dirty (or does it already do this?) cheers -ben

...

For me this is clear (for example for the icon: fix) I do not do anything if this is with the process you describe because it is insane.

In fact fixing this process is part of the job description for your position.

It was

- republishing automatically changes and the configuration

- working on package validation (making sure that the catalog does not get full of not working project)

- bootstrap :)

Of course I am aware of it :-)

-- Pavel

...

Stef

Le 8/6/16 à 11:05, Pavel Krivanek a écrit :

Hi,

we had in the system circular package dependency between Catalog and GTools and we decided to solve it by simple moving of one method from one package to other one. However, these two packages are external packages managed by configurations. That means that we needed move the method, save dirty packages and fix both configurations.

For the catalog we have very simple configuration because it manages only one package (and dependency on STON). ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore was more complicated because the repository already included newer development version of the modified package so we needed to merge. But because we are not the maintainers, we cannot know if the change in this package is not requiring changes in other packages provided by the configuration. Well, the new configurations were prepared and copied into inbox. We needed to create next two issues for updating of the configuration in the system. We did it and integrated all together in one update. But that is not all... ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore is used by three other configurations (ConfigurationOfGTPlaygroundCore, ConfigurationOfGToolkitCore and ConfgurationOfGTDebugger) that specify number of ConfigurationOfGTInspectorCore version. In ideal state you should create new versions of the configurations but that means that you need to modify configurations of all other configurations that use them. It is simpler just modify current configuration and upgrade required version number of GTInspectorCore. That means to create three next issues, each for one configuration, create new configuration versions (and check and merge the newer versions in the home repository if needed), copy them to the inbox, wait for the review and hope that during integration the Integrator will not create new versions of some packages. If yes, you need to update configurations again.

So at the end you have at least six issues because you wanted to change package for one method that has still the same content and is placed in the same class... And it can be worse. Both of these external projects have public access to the repository and are managed the same way (not mixing MC with GIT).

As you see, it is crazy and unmaintainable.

It is clear that we need to change the process. We need to discuss it deeply and some of the results may touch maintainers of the external projects integrated in Pharo but please keep in mind that the current system is clearly bad.

Cheers, -- Pavel

2016-06-09 16:32 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:

I have a mental block to contributing to part of Pharo maintained in

...

external repositories. Maybe its unreasonable, but it just *feels* like too much friction. If I've worked on an issue, I. just. want. to. submit. it!

:)

+1