sound cool. Estenban we need more :) On May 19, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Dale Henrichs wrote:

Yes, I don't think that it is a good idea to modify the configuration when it is published in the PharoXXMetacelloRepository.

In the end the reason for this discussion revolves around the desire to provide a simple method for developers/users to load projects that are "known/tested to work in PharoXX".

Creating a PharoXXMetacelloRepository means that we have a "white list" of configurations that are"known/tested to work in PharoXX".

GoferProjectLoader provides an API for loading projects from a target repository. The API makes it very simple to load a particular project by name, without having to specify more details about the version of groups involved. It also means that one can arrange to do special things under the cover of the GoferProjectLoader, like point to a different repository based upon the version of Pharo that it is running in ...

I think that what we need in addition to a "white list" of projects, a "white list" of _versions_ that are "known/tested to work in PharoXX."

I think it would be straightforward to subclass/extend the GoferProjectLoader to add the notion of a version/group "white list" that records the exact configuration/version/group(s) that have been tested and known to work. This same extension to GoferProjectLoader can automatically include an overrideRepositories: to ensure that all projects/packages are loaded from the PharoXXMetacelloRepository repository...

By default, the GoferProjectLoader loaded into PharoXX would point to PharoXXMetacelloRepository and use the "white list" of versions.

Once a developer/user has become comfortable using PharoXX, he/she can configure GoferProjectLoader to suit his/her needs as well as directly load Configurations/versions that are not on the "white list" (using Metacello directly) without requiring any changes to the configurations or where they originated from...

So in the end the following expression will do things differently depending upon a) which version of Pharo it is executed in and b) whether or not you are using the 'default' GoferProjectLoader:

Gofer project load: 'SqueakDBX'.

All while using the same Configuration...

Dale

Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

...

Yes I think that this is what dale proposed. Dale is off line today but he will probably comment Stef

On May 18, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:

...

Hi,

I like this approach: 1. Projects can continue to be built independently. For example, in Moose, we have already a process with multiple configurations (one for each repository) depending on each other. 2. When ready, the Configurations and all related packages are "published" in the PharoXXMetacelloRepository. Having a package per Configuration makes it easy to copy it.

The only problem is that the code of Configuration mentions explicitly the repository (especially in the case of having nested Configurations, I point to a configuration by specifying the repository, package, and class). So, I guess the simplest thing here would be to provide the default "load" method to already override dynamically all repositories with the PharoXXMetacelloRepository.

Cheers, Doru

On 18 May 2010, at 09:32, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

...

I understand nicolas. Now my agenda is more than full. and the proposal is here. Simple

========================================================== One repo per version Pharo1.0, Pharo11 ... MetacelloRepository containing **published** configurationOfXXX -> all the dependent packages are copied locally + configuration ready to load using load.

A project contain its single/or several configurationOfMyProject with the complete history people commit the config to their repository and if they want they **publish** from their repository to the version repository a version. This version is frozen -> all the dependent packages are copied locally + configuration ready to load using load.

For Pharo core or pharo packages that we maintain we want to maintain it as a project. with its own repository and packages.

We can use automatic build server to validate the status or migration between different repositories ==========================================================

Stef

On May 17, 2010, at 11:00 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:

...

The meaning of my message was don't do it for squeak, but do it for yourself. I don't doubt the mailing list is a mine of information, but even in the best mine you need to dig a lot before extracting the gold nuggets. Of course, I've got no right to control your agenda, who am I ? You can consider the subject close, and I won't find your attitude shocking at all. But next time, consider writing a rationale for your own, it will increase quality of Pharo decision process.

Best regards

Nicolas

2010/5/17 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> :

...

nicolas

all the information is in the metacello mailing-list and we already posted many mails on that topics in this mailing list. I'm sorry but I do not have the time to repeat again what we said. Now since I'm in a really good mood in a nutshell

one repo per version Pharo1.0, Pharo11 ... MetacelloRepository containing configurationOfXXX frozen = all the dependent packages are copied locally + configuration ready to load using load.

a project contain its single/or whatever configurationOfMyProject people publish the config to their repository and if they want they push from their repository to the version repository a version that they freeze (may be using tags)

For Pharo core or pharo packages that we maintain we want to maintain it as a project. with its own repository and packages.

Then we have a server that load configuration and barks if something wrong happen. And may be we kick out the configurationofXXX from MetacelloRepositories

...

Steph, I understand how boring it may seem: - you already discussed the subject over and over - you already took decisions and now we come later with new proposals, and ask you to reconsider the work again...

more than that. :) It looks like if we did not talk or think about what we are doing.

...

As for the Preferences/Settings, Pharo choices are probably very weel thought.

However, every solution will come with trade offs, and it would be good to have a rationale justifying the choices you made, and perhaps more importantly justifying why you did abandon some solutions, because some questions might be repeated in Pharo 1.2, 1.3, 2.0 ... and find different answers in different context. Note that Squeak evolutions might have influence on Pharo too, and it's part of the context...

I strongly encourage you to establish your rationale on Pharo grounds - independently of Andreas proposals, put it on the Pharo wiki and let us know the URL.

You also know that Squeak goals are not exactly those of Pharo w.r.t. backward compatibility, so Squeak can't just blindly replicate Pharo solutions without a rationale.

The merit of Andreas proposal is to try and establish such a rationale. Without it, we're bound to repeat discussions again and again,

So to fix the problem consider that as our proposal.

Stef

_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list

Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list

Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list

Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

--

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow."

_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list

Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project