Re: [Pharo-dev] [pharo-project/pharo] 21646 AbstractFileReference should use "utilities" protocol name (#1149)
Hi Torsten, I like all this cleanups and recategorizations. But I have two requests, tell me what you think: - first and more important. I'd like that we define a convention document in a wiki page or pillar document for protocols. What are the correct protocols to use and why? This is important for newcomers and for making tools. I see that you're doing a lot of recategorizations but I'd like if we set them up and discuss them in the mailing list. - second and more technological. Why are all categorizations splitted in mini pull requests, scoped to one class? Can we group them at least by package? otherwise this is killing our integration infrastructure (which is modest but for free :)). Also separating all this changes means that we cannot easily find them in the history later on, I'd prefer that we group related changes in related commits if possible. Marcus was telling me this may be because people have trouble reviewing them if they are too big? I can review if you put me ask me as reviewer. Tx, Guilel On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Astares <notifications@github.com> wrote:
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21646/AbstractFileReference-should- use-utilities-protocol-name ------------------------------ You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1149 Commit Summary
- 21646 AbstractFileReference should use "utilities" protocol name
File Changes
- *M* src/FileSystem-Core/AbstractFileReference.class.st <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1149/files#diff-0> (2)
Patch Links:
- https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1149.patch - https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1149.diff
â You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1149>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AArO4g3P9uj62nQGbRG-T842HC...> .
-- Guille Polito Research Engineer Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille CRIStAL - UMR 9189 French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr <http://www.cnrs.fr>* *Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io> *Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13
Thanks Guille for raising these points. I already raised the issues of producing many small actions that are damaging our infrastructure. I talked to christophe and he told me that it should not impact us but it does :). I changed the in-image categorizer to specify some given protocols (for example initialization and not initialize-release) and I mentioned several times that I did a small tools to analyze the use of a given selector and perform automatic protocol renaming in AutomatedMethodCategorizer on SmalltalkHub. May be I should use it massively I guess that we could clean a lot in one shot. Stef On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Torsten,
I like all this cleanups and recategorizations.
But I have two requests, tell me what you think:
- first and more important. I'd like that we define a convention document in a wiki page or pillar document for protocols. What are the correct protocols to use and why? This is important for newcomers and for making tools. I see that you're doing a lot of recategorizations but I'd like if we set them up and discuss them in the mailing list.
- second and more technological. Why are all categorizations splitted in mini pull requests, scoped to one class? Can we group them at least by package? otherwise this is killing our integration infrastructure (which is modest but for free :)). Also separating all this changes means that we cannot easily find them in the history later on, I'd prefer that we group related changes in related commits if possible. Marcus was telling me this may be because people have trouble reviewing them if they are too big? I can review if you put me ask me as reviewer.
Tx, Guilel
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Astares <notifications@github.com> wrote:
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21646/AbstractFileReferenc e-should-use-utilities-protocol-name ------------------------------ You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1149 Commit Summary
- 21646 AbstractFileReference should use "utilities" protocol name
File Changes
- *M* src/FileSystem-Core/AbstractFileReference.class.st <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1149/files#diff-0> (2)
Patch Links:
- https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1149.patch - https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1149.diff
â You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1149>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AArO4g3P9uj62nQGbRG-T842HC...> .
--
Guille Polito
Research Engineer
Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille
CRIStAL - UMR 9189
French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr <http://www.cnrs.fr>*
*Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io>
*Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13 <+33%206%2052%2070%2066%2013>
participants (2)
-
Guillermo Polito -
Stephane Ducasse