Hi Torsten, Thanks for the clear explication, I think I will most probably go for scenario 1, but it is good to at least know about scenario 2. I'll sure come back if I cannot get this working on my own. Sven

On 17 Dec 2018, at 20:18, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

Hi Sven,

Maybe we have better ideas when we move forward with the transition to git for the majority of external projects. But for the time being I guess we stick to Catalog as a replacement is still not available. It might not be the best solution - but at least it works. The only downside is that it is still dependent on SmalltalkHub due to the MetaRepos hosted there.

To answer your questions:

For Pharo 7.0 there is a regular MetaRepo

http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo/MetaRepoForPharo70

that one can use. The (re)indexing each day is still based on providing a ConfigurationOf... there. We will create a MetaRepoForPharo80 once Pharo 7 is released and Pharo 8 work starts.

Catalog also does not work directly with BaselineOf - so you point from your ConfigurationOf to a BaselineOf in Github as the examples below will demonstrate.

So while the basic mechanism of Catalog did not change and works as before the usage of git and GitHub gives you now more flexibility in the management of your (catalog) projects.

I already use this for a few of my projects that I moved to GitHub and I would share some experience here. Basically I tried now two different models:

Model 1: Work with a single branch and close a release using a tag as version in git =================================================================================== This is I guess how Iceberg, Calypso and others are maintained now. You work on a specific (development) branch and use the git tagging to mark release like milestone of your project ("versions").

This is the model I started to maintain ConfigurationOfTealight (which you will find in catalog and in https://github.com/astares/Tealight)

So I tagged in git when I reached something shareable as you can see on the first releases: https://github.com/astares/Tealight/releases and then reference this git tagged version in my ConfigurationOfTealight:

v0_0_4: spec <version: '0.0.4'>

spec for: #'common' do: [ spec blessing: #'stable'. spec baseline: 'Tealight' with: [ spec className: 'BaselineOfTealight'; repository: 'github://astares/Tealight:0.0.4/repository' ]]

The advantage is that you use git to tag the releases, it is a reproducable stable version then and GitHub shows it on the "releases" tab. One typically can not modify the release afterwards (which is not 100% true as git tags could be moved but this is another story).

So with this model you form and finalize/close a release by tagging in git/GitHub and reference it in your ConfigurationOf....

Model 2: Work with several open branches - one per Pharo version ================================================================

In DesktopManager which is on https://github.com/astares/Pharo-DesktopManager I do it differently. I wanted to maintain it for Pharo7 now but wanted to still easily backport changes to Pharo 6.

For this project I maintain therefore two special branches "pharo6" and "pharo7" - each for a particular Pharo version.

So in the ConfigurationOfDesktop as you will find in MetaRepoForPharo70 I just point to the Baseline with only the difference of the branch:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ pharo6: spec <version: '6.0'>

spec for: #'common' do: [ spec baseline: 'DesktopManager' with: [ spec className: 'BaselineOfDesktopManager'; repository: 'github://astares/Pharo-DesktopManager:pharo6/src' ]] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ pharo7: spec <version: '7.0'>

spec for: #'common' do: [ spec baseline: 'DesktopManager' with: [ spec className: 'BaselineOfDesktopManager'; repository: 'github://astares/Pharo-DesktopManager:pharo7/src' ]] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ stable: spec <symbolicVersion: #'stable'>

spec for: #'pharo5.x' version: '0.2.0'. "old way using versioning with Monticello/Metacello and StHub" spec for: #'pharo6.x' version: '6.0'. "still open version branch from Pharo 6 using git and GitHub" spec for: #'pharo7.x' version: '7.0'. "still open version branch from Pharo 7 using git and GitHub" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This allows me to maintain the differences between the Pharo 6 and Pharo 7 version by using the two distinguished branches and backport from the "pharo7" branch easily to the "pharo6" branch if necessary.

As no tagging with explicit versioning is involved here the branch for each Pharo version is always open for new additions/future fixes.

The first model is close to what one is used to from the past: having reproducible fixed tagged versions referenced from the ConfigurationOf...

The second model fits better if you provide packages that you would like to maintain for several Pharo versions from 6.0 onwards. I now also use it to maintain "QuickAccess", "OSWindows", "OSUnix", ... and others.

Hope this helps a little bit. If not just ask.

Have fun T.

...

Gesendet: Montag, 17. Dezember 2018 um 17:16 Uhr Von: "Sven Van Caekenberghe" <sven@stfx.eu> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] Catalog Entries

Hi,

So we have the Catalog with version specific repositories for ConfigurationOfXYZ packages/classes.

I am assuming that we will be keeping this system for at least Pharo 7 and possibly 8.

Can one define Catalog entries using BaselineOfXYZ ? Is that recommended ? Or should a mostly empty ConfigurationOfXYZ be used that internally refers to the BaselineOfXYZ ?

Sven

On 17 Dec 2018, at 20:18, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

Model 1: Work with a single branch and close a release using a tag as version in git =================================================================================== This is I guess how Iceberg, Calypso and others are maintained now. You work on a specific (development) branch and use the git tagging to mark release like milestone of your project ("versions").

This is the model I started to maintain ConfigurationOfTealight (which you will find in catalog and in https://github.com/astares/Tealight)

So I tagged in git when I reached something shareable as you can see on the first releases: https://github.com/astares/Tealight/releases and then reference this git tagged version in my ConfigurationOfTealight:

v0_0_4: spec <version: '0.0.4'>

spec for: #'common' do: [ spec blessing: #'stable'. spec baseline: 'Tealight' with: [ spec className: 'BaselineOfTealight'; repository: 'github://astares/Tealight:0.0.4/repository' ]]

The advantage is that you use git to tag the releases, it is a reproducable stable version then and GitHub shows it on the "releases" tab. One typically can not modify the release afterwards (which is not 100% true as git tags could be moved but this is another story).

So with this model you form and finalize/close a release by tagging in git/GitHub and reference it in your ConfigurationOf....

Would it not be possible to refer to the latest release ? For example:

github://astares/Tealight:latest/repository

That way one would no longer have to update the ConfigurationOf (just like the BaselineOf does not have to be updated), just making a new release would be enough. I tried, but I get Revspec 'latest' not found.

I am trying to load https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/releases/latest which is actually https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/releases/tag/v24 The following works because that is the whole idea of releases (which are just tags) Metacello new baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:v24'; load. But I would like to do Metacello new baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:latest'; load. Maybe that is not possible, maybe that has to be done in another way. I know about master or other branch names, I was hoping latest was moving/tracking like https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/releases/latest does

On 18 Dec 2018, at 12:05, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:00 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

...

On 17 Dec 2018, at 20:18, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

Model 1: Work with a single branch and close a release using a tag as version in git =================================================================================== This is I guess how Iceberg, Calypso and others are maintained now. You work on a specific (development) branch and use the git tagging to mark release like milestone of your project ("versions").

This is the model I started to maintain ConfigurationOfTealight (which you will find in catalog and in https://github.com/astares/Tealight)

So I tagged in git when I reached something shareable as you can see on the first releases: https://github.com/astares/Tealight/releases and then reference this git tagged version in my ConfigurationOfTealight:

v0_0_4: spec <version: '0.0.4'>

spec for: #'common' do: [ spec blessing: #'stable'. spec baseline: 'Tealight' with: [ spec className: 'BaselineOfTealight'; repository: 'github://astares/Tealight:0.0.4/repository' ]]

The advantage is that you use git to tag the releases, it is a reproducable stable version then and GitHub shows it on the "releases" tab. One typically can not modify the release afterwards (which is not 100% true as git tags could be moved but this is another story).

So with this model you form and finalize/close a release by tagging in git/GitHub and reference it in your ConfigurationOf....

Would it not be possible to refer to the latest release ? For example:

...

github://astares/Tealight:latest/repository

That way one would no longer have to update the ConfigurationOf (just like the BaselineOf does not have to be updated), just making a new release would be enough.

I tried, but I get Revspec 'latest' not found.

I'm following the conversation in diagonal, but if this error is raised by metacello's iceberg integration it would mean that Tealight has no commitish (tag/branch) with the name latest.

On 18 Dec 2018, at 12:48, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

Hi Sven,

did you try to just use the branch name as in the other model.

Metacello new baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:master'; load.

then it should load the latest from this branch independent from the tags.

Bye T.

I know about master and what it means, but that is not exactly what I want. When you release, that is a deliberate action: you put a stamp on the current project timeline, declaring it as ready/stable enough for people to depend on. The master branch can further evolve after a (latest) release. It is the next release candidate. I would like to depend on whatever released version is the latest. See the URLs in my previous email.

Yes that is what I want, I hoped it already existed, by yes we can use a tag that we move with each release.

On 18 Dec 2018, at 13:45, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

Hi Sven,

so if I understood you correctly you want a single branch for development - lets assume you directly use master for that.

If you just load the branch you get the "latest development" things that are still work in progress.

Then from time to time you tag a version for release: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 in your master branch.

If today 3.0 is your latest release they should have a load expression to load 3.0. If tomorrow you tag a new release 4.0 you want to them to use the same load expression to get the "latest released".

Right?

There is no specific meta-tag for that. But as a tag is nothing more than a string applied to a commit for later reference you could additionally tag the commit of 3.0 with a tag "latest" or "latestRelease" and then later (after 4.0 is released) move this tag to the commit that was used for building a new 4.0.

I have not tried but as you could delete and/or move tags in git this should be doable in git without any problem. Just google for "tag moving" and "git".

Metacello itself does not care - it then will use

Metacello new baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:latestRelease'; load.

to ask git for the tag. But it is your responsibility to move the tag "latestRelease" forward manually anytime you do a new release.

As you usually tag locally - remember to push the tags afterwards. Double checking afterwards in GitHub helps here. The command

git push -f --tags

could be helpful here.

Hope this solves what you require.

Thanks Torsten

...

Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2018 um 12:54 Uhr Von: "Sven Van Caekenberghe" <sven@stfx.eu> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: Re: [Pharo-dev] Catalog Entries

...

On 18 Dec 2018, at 12:48, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

Hi Sven,

did you try to just use the branch name as in the other model.

Metacello new baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:master'; load.

then it should load the latest from this branch independent from the tags.

Bye T.

I know about master and what it means, but that is not exactly what I want.

When you release, that is a deliberate action: you put a stamp on the current project timeline, declaring it as ready/stable enough for people to depend on.

The master branch can further evolve after a (latest) release. It is the next release candidate.

I would like to depend on whatever released version is the latest. See the URLs in my previous email.

On 19 Dec 2018, at 08:50, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Sven,

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 12:55, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

...

I know about master and what it means, but that is not exactly what I want.

When you release, that is a deliberate action: you put a stamp on the current project timeline, declaring it as ready/stable enough for people to depend on.

The master branch can further evolve after a (latest) release. It is the next release candidate.

I would like to depend on whatever released version is the latest. See the URLs in my previous email.

I think your understanding of master is different from mine. master should never be the next release candidate, it is only ever the latest GA code.

In that case, you can use master to mean "the latest GA version".

If you want release candidates, they should be branches off development (or tags).

If you want to support multiple versions, e.g. be able to release a 4.1 after 5.0 has been released, then each version should be branched off master (at the GA commit for that version).

If you want to know where a named GA version is (and there won't be further updates), it is a tag on the master branch.

I don't think/believe there is only one right way to use git, that is part of its power. In our eco system, with #stable and #bleedingEdge / #development versions of ConfigurationsOf, it is my experience that very few people test before something is released. Hence the only way to get feedback is to release. Only if something has proven itself to be stable for some time can it receive a release tag, IMHO. I also want to make things as simple as possible.

Cheers, Alistair

On 19 Dec 2018, at 10:58, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Sven,

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 10:46, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

...

...

On 19 Dec 2018, at 08:50, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Sven,

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 12:55, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

...

I know about master and what it means, but that is not exactly what I want.

When you release, that is a deliberate action: you put a stamp on the current project timeline, declaring it as ready/stable enough for people to depend on.

The master branch can further evolve after a (latest) release. It is the next release candidate.

I would like to depend on whatever released version is the latest. See the URLs in my previous email.

I think your understanding of master is different from mine. master should never be the next release candidate, it is only ever the latest GA code.

In that case, you can use master to mean "the latest GA version".

If you want release candidates, they should be branches off development (or tags).

If you want to support multiple versions, e.g. be able to release a 4.1 after 5.0 has been released, then each version should be branched off master (at the GA commit for that version).

If you want to know where a named GA version is (and there won't be further updates), it is a tag on the master branch.

I don't think/believe there is only one right way to use git, that is part of its power.

Agreed, and I can see how you read my reply that way, but I didn't mean to imply that "this is the one and only right way to do it".

...

In our eco system, with #stable and #bleedingEdge / #development versions of ConfigurationsOf, it is my experience that very few people test before something is released. Hence the only way to get feedback is to release. Only if something has proven itself to be stable for some time can it receive a release tag, IMHO.

OK, so what I understand you're try to achieve is to have a "released" version and a "released and better tested" version.

Doesn't this run the same risk of people just sticking to the "released and better tested" version, so the "released" version never gets the additional testing that's desired?

Yes, that is the question ;-)

...

I also want to make things as simple as possible.

:-)

Cheers, Alistair

So let us agree on the best name then, to minimise confusion going forward. I am not sure I would go for camel case, git is typically lowercase (or so it feels), I agree 'release' should be part of the name, so last-release latest-release lastRelease latestRelease What say you ?

On 18 Dec 2018, at 13:45, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 19:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote: I am trying to load https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/releases/latest which is actually https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/releases/tag/v24

The following works because that is the whole idea of releases (which are just tags)

Metacello new baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:v24'; load.

But I would like to do

Metacello new baseline: 'ZTimestamp'; repository: 'github://svenvc/ztimestamp:latest';

This might be something good to have as a community convention, but "latest" on its own is a bit ambiguous. Reading your subsequent post maybe "latestRelease" would be good (or "lastRelease"), to distinguish "latestStable" which is similar but not necessarily a release.

(or maybe I'm being too pedantic) cheers -ben

load.

Maybe that is not possible, maybe that has to be done in another way.

I know about master or other branch names, I was hoping latest was moving/tracking like https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/releases/latest does

...

On 18 Dec 2018, at 12:05, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:00 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

...

On 17 Dec 2018, at 20:18, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

Model 1: Work with a single branch and close a release using a tag as version in git =================================================================================== This is I guess how Iceberg, Calypso and others are maintained now. You work on a specific (development) branch and use the git tagging to mark release like milestone of your project ("versions").

This is the model I started to maintain ConfigurationOfTealight (which you will find in catalog and in https://github.com/astares/Tealight)

So I tagged in git when I reached something shareable as you can see on the first releases: https://github.com/astares/Tealight/releases and then reference this git tagged version in my ConfigurationOfTealight:

v0_0_4: spec <version: '0.0.4'>

spec for: #'common' do: [ spec blessing: #'stable'. spec baseline: 'Tealight' with: [ spec className: 'BaselineOfTealight'; repository: 'github://astares/Tealight:0.0.4/repository' ]]

The advantage is that you use git to tag the releases, it is a reproducable stable version then and GitHub shows it on the "releases" tab. One typically can not modify the release afterwards (which is not 100% true as git tags could be moved but this is another story).

So with this model you form and finalize/close a release by tagging in git/GitHub and reference it in your ConfigurationOf....

Would it not be possible to refer to the latest release ? For example:

...

github://astares/Tealight:latest/repository

That way one would no longer have to update the ConfigurationOf (just like the BaselineOf does not have to be updated), just making a new release would be enough.

I tried, but I get Revspec 'latest' not found.

I'm following the conversation in diagonal, but if this error is raised by metacello's iceberg integration it would mean that Tealight has no commitish (tag/branch) with the name latest.

JOKING: "lastRelease" is fine, there is no release afterwards anymore as it is completed by 100% ;) SERIOUS: "latest-release" seems appropriate

On 18 Dec 2018, at 14:23, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 21:01, Esteban Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote: El mar., 18 dic. 2018 a las 9:53, Sven Van Caekenberghe (<sven@stfx.eu>) escribió:

...

So let us agree on the best name then, to minimise confusion going forward.

I am not sure I would go for camel case, git is typically lowercase (or so it feels), I agree 'release' should be part of the name, so

last-release latest-release lastRelease latestRelease

Following "gittish" conventions, IMO `latest-release` would be the proper name because "last" suggests me there won't be more releases afterwards.

Good point. +1.

But I wonder if moving tags is really a good idea. I've not practical experience with it but reading section "If the tag is edited on the server, but the local one is old" http://blog.iqandreas.com/git/how-to-move-tags/ it seems potentially complicated.

Whereas if latest-release was a branch, after you version tag your release you could do... $ git checkout latest-release $ git merge tagversion $ git push

And side benefit, latest-release would show up in the github > Insights > Network view to easily inspect what changes have been made since latest-release.

cheers -ben

interesting. since both a branch and a moving tag look the same from the reference standpoint, this could be considered an implementation detail, the repo maintainer could switch later on, while the URL would remain github://svenvc/ztimestamp:latest-release

Ben, Torsten, I decided to go for the branch option, https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/tree/latest-release I will extend the ConfigurationOf to refer to it for Pharo 6.1 and 7 Thanks for all the help.

On 18 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

Ben wrote

...

"If the tag is edited on the server, but the local one is old"

Yes - there could be an issue with this "tag moving" approach if the server is not checked for new tags / moved tags and the version from the local repo cache is loaded - because you might load an outdated while the server already has a newer "latest-release".

When I think a second time I guess what Sven wants could maybe also be achieved with another model:

- having the "master" branch for development and tagged releases 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and so on - having a second "latest-release" branch where the current latest tag from master is just pulled/merged in Anytime you make a new release version in master you just pull it into this "latest-release" branch

This has several benefits:

- you can use the same stable load expression with stable URL: github://svenvc/ztimestamp:latest-release - you just tag in master as usual - when a new release was tagged in master you just switch to the "latest-release" branch, pull from master and push to github (easier than tag moving) - the graph ("Insights" -> "Network") shows you if you already pulled the latest tagged version from master into the "latest-release" branch and also shows you how far ahead you are with master in case of further development

Also when the latest release has some trouble but your master development is not yet ready for a full new version you can hot-fix it in the "latest-release" branch to help people. Later when you are ready with another full new version you will have the branches resynched then anyway.

I'm not sure if this model also has some drawbacks - but as it looks now this seems a better option...

Bye T.

To understand for future reference, just curious what you ended up doing. At https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/releases I see the v24 tag is commit ee31f06 but at https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/network I see the latest-release branch is commit b18dfdf It looks like you v24 of ConfigurationOfZTimestamp was committed after v24 tag was created. Intuitively I'd expect the them to be the same commit. Was there something impediment to doing that or you have a different idea? cheers -ben On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 23:42, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

Ben, Torsten,

I decided to go for the branch option,

https://github.com/svenvc/ztimestamp/tree/latest-release

I will extend the ConfigurationOf to refer to it for Pharo 6.1 and 7

Thanks for all the help.

...

On 18 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

Ben wrote

...

"If the tag is edited on the server, but the local one is old"

Yes - there could be an issue with this "tag moving" approach if the server is not checked for new tags / moved tags and the version from the local repo cache is loaded - because you might load an outdated while the server already has a newer "latest-release".

When I think a second time I guess what Sven wants could maybe also be achieved with another model:

- having the "master" branch for development and tagged releases 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and so on - having a second "latest-release" branch where the current latest tag from master is just pulled/merged in Anytime you make a new release version in master you just pull it into this "latest-release" branch

This has several benefits:

- you can use the same stable load expression with stable URL: github://svenvc/ztimestamp:latest-release - you just tag in master as usual - when a new release was tagged in master you just switch to the "latest-release" branch, pull from master and push to github (easier than tag moving) - the graph ("Insights" -> "Network") shows you if you already pulled the latest tagged version from master into the "latest-release" branch and also shows you how far ahead you are with master in case of further development

Also when the latest release has some trouble but your master development is not yet ready for a full new version you can hot-fix it in the "latest-release" branch to help people. Later when you are ready with another full new version you will have the branches resynched then anyway.

I'm not sure if this model also has some drawbacks - but as it looks now this seems a better option...

Bye T.