For 2.0: links point to latest build on pharp-project.org
Hi, I changed all links to point to the latest 2.0 build on files.pharo.org Reason: -> We are fixing bugs, yet people downloading 2.0 do not see the fix -> We had multiple times that people wasted quite some effort re-reporting bugs that are already fixed. Notes -> the file name "latest.zip" is not good for the image. It should encode that it is the image only and the version number maybe? -> I did not change any VM related download links, but I think we should do the same there. Marcus
New links available: http://files.pharo.org/image/30/Pharo-Image-3.0-latest.zip http://files.pharo.org/image/20/Pharo-Image-2.0-latest.zip I'm fixing the VM links to http://files.pharo.org/vm/pharo/$PLATFORM/Pharo-VM-$PLATFORM-latest.zip and changing all files $VM_NAME-$PLATFORM-$NUMBER.zip to $NUMBER.zip like that we are more consistent! On 2013-06-07, at 16:19, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi,
I changed all links to point to the latest 2.0 build on files.pharo.org
Reason:
-> We are fixing bugs, yet people downloading 2.0 do not see the fix -> We had multiple times that people wasted quite some effort re-reporting bugs that are already fixed.
Notes -> the file name "latest.zip" is not good for the image. It should encode that it is the image only and the version number maybe? -> I did not change any VM related download links, but I think we should do the same there.
Marcus
Marcus Denker wrote:
Hi,
I changed all links to point to the latest 2.0 build on files.pharo.org
Reason:
-> We are fixing bugs, yet people downloading 2.0 do not see the fix -> We had multiple times that people wasted quite some effort re-reporting bugs that are already fixed.
Notes -> the file name "latest.zip" is not good for the image. It should encode that it is the image only and the version number maybe? -> I did not change any VM related download links, but I think we should do the same there.
Marcus
That is great that 2.0 is continuing to improve. +100 for including version numbers on the web page - something like [1]. For the purpose of reproducibility and least surprise, at [2] where it currently says "2.0 (release)" and "Pharo2.0 (win)" I would expect that link to download the _exact_ same file every time, except today that zip file contains files dated today, so obviously is not the same file as last week. You might get away with following "latest" with a link called "Pharo2 (win)" without the minor-version number, but by including a a minor-version number I would expect that it is the constant point-in-time snapshot of the _2.0 release_. [1] http://www.python.org/download/ [2] http://www.pharo-project.org/pharo-download Also, revisiting (major.minor.bugfix) semantic versioning in the context of Pharo, an important part of configuration management for a user is matching versions of VM to Image. For me, I simply this when I update by always taking the fat zip which include both - but it would be nice to have the confidence to just take the image. So it would be good if the VM/Image dependency could be encoded by the version numbers. Something like the following... My shallow understanding of the CI infrastructure is that to "some degree" : 1. the Image CI runs against a constant VM version 2. the VM CI runs against a constant Image version So considering Case 1... a. Image updates would bump only the bugfix number. b. VM updates would bump the minor number. This would make is easy for a user to always determine that Image version 2.2.x was tested against VM Pharo22.exe. To avoid excessively incrementing the minor version number, considering Case 2... c. (for example) you would begin testing VM updates against constant Image 2.0.0 d. when a required VM update breaks a test in Image 2.0.0, then increment the minor version number. Work to get latest VM and latest Image both green. These then become Pharo21.exe and Image 2.1.0, which are used as a the next starting point for Case 1. Further VM updates are now tested against constant Image 2.1.0. Now if you do the same with Pharo 3, then of course you might end up with Pharo25.exe and Pharo31.exe VMs being identical files, but from a user perspective that is a reasonable price to pay for the gain in configuration management. P.S. Its great that the CI infrastructure even allows me to think along these lines. cheers -ben
On 2013-06-07, at 20:03, btc@openinworld.com wrote:
Marcus Denker wrote:
Hi,
I changed all links to point to the latest 2.0 build on files.pharo.org
Reason:
-> We are fixing bugs, yet people downloading 2.0 do not see the fix -> We had multiple times that people wasted quite some effort re-reporting bugs that are already fixed.
Notes -> the file name "latest.zip" is not good for the image. It should encode that it is the image only and the version number maybe? -> I did not change any VM related download links, but I think we should do the same there.
Marcus
That is great that 2.0 is continuing to improve.
+100 for including version numbers on the web page - something like [1]. For the purpose of reproducibility and least surprise, at [2] where it currently says "2.0 (release)" and "Pharo2.0 (win)" I would expect that link to download the _exact_ same file every time, except today that zip file contains files dated today, so obviously is not the same file as last week. You might get away with following "latest" with a link called "Pharo2 (win)" without the minor-version number, but by including a a minor-version number I would expect that it is the constant point-in-time snapshot of the _2.0 release_. [1] http://www.python.org/download/ [2] http://www.pharo-project.org/pharo-download
Also, revisiting (major.minor.bugfix) semantic versioning in the context of Pharo, an important part of configuration management for a user is matching versions of VM to Image. For me, I simply this when I update by always taking the fat zip which include both - but it would be nice to have the confidence to just take the image. So it would be good if the VM/Image dependency could be encoded by the version numbers. Something like the following...
My shallow understanding of the CI infrastructure is that to "some degree" : 1. the Image CI runs against a constant VM version
the image is tested against the latest stable vm (ex. http://files.pharo.org/vm/pahro/linux/stable.zip) since stable VMs are promoted manually we can consider them being constant.
2. the VM CI runs against a constant Image version
true, https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/VM/job/PharoVM-tests/ shows that we run against the latest image (2.0 in this case) and a fixed image (vm-test.zip in this case). Currently the CI infrastructure is suffering from a network failure, that's why the more runs than usual are red.
So considering Case 1... a. Image updates would bump only the bugfix number. b. VM updates would bump the minor number. This would make is easy for a user to always determine that Image version 2.2.x was tested against VM Pharo22.exe. To avoid excessively incrementing the minor version number, considering Case 2... c. (for example) you would begin testing VM updates against constant Image 2.0.0 d. when a required VM update breaks a test in Image 2.0.0, then increment the minor version number. Work to get latest VM and latest Image both green. These then become Pharo21.exe and Image 2.1.0, which are used as a the next starting point for Case 1. Further VM updates are now tested against constant Image 2.1.0.
this scheme will work fine once we release VM's for each Pharo release (which I guess is planned at some point). Currently this is not yet the case, so the objective is to make the VM work with every image...
On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:03 PM, btc@openinworld.com wrote:
Marcus Denker wrote:
Hi,
I changed all links to point to the latest 2.0 build on files.pharo.org
Reason:
-> We are fixing bugs, yet people downloading 2.0 do not see the fix -> We had multiple times that people wasted quite some effort re-reporting bugs that are already fixed.
Notes -> the file name "latest.zip" is not good for the image. It should encode that it is the image only and the version number maybe? -> I did not change any VM related download links, but I think we should do the same there.
Marcus
That is great that 2.0 is continuing to improve.
+100 for including version numbers on the web page - something like [1]. For the purpose of reproducibility and least surprise, at [2] where it currently says "2.0 (release)" and "Pharo2.0 (win)" I would expect that link to download the _exact_ same file every time, except today that zip file contains files dated today, so obviously is not the same file as last week. You might get away with following "latest" with a link called "Pharo2 (win)" without the minor-version number, but by including a a minor-version number I would expect that it is the constant point-in-time snapshot of the _2.0 release_. This is what we had. But we fixed bugs already, yet people where reporting those bugs again. So what do we do? We can *not* change the link for every update⦠I spend already today around 30 minute to fix all the links. Should I do that every time we do an update?
Marcus
On Jun 8, 2013, at 1:43 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:03 PM, btc@openinworld.com wrote:
Marcus Denker wrote:
Hi,
I changed all links to point to the latest 2.0 build on files.pharo.org
Reason:
-> We are fixing bugs, yet people downloading 2.0 do not see the fix -> We had multiple times that people wasted quite some effort re-reporting bugs that are already fixed.
Notes -> the file name "latest.zip" is not good for the image. It should encode that it is the image only and the version number maybe? -> I did not change any VM related download links, but I think we should do the same there.
Marcus
That is great that 2.0 is continuing to improve.
+100 for including version numbers on the web page - something like [1]. For the purpose of reproducibility and least surprise, at [2] where it currently says "2.0 (release)" and "Pharo2.0 (win)" I would expect that link to download the _exact_ same file every time, except today that zip file contains files dated today, so obviously is not the same file as last week. You might get away with following "latest" with a link called "Pharo2 (win)" without the minor-version number, but by including a a minor-version number I would expect that it is the constant point-in-time snapshot of the _2.0 release_. This is what we had. But we fixed bugs already, yet people where reporting those bugs again. So what do we do? We can *not* change the link for every update⦠I spend already today around 30 minute to fix all the links. Should I do that every time we do an update?
To explain: We have the major version Pharo2 Pharo3 Pharo4 These are released once per year. While developing, we do updates. At some point (e.g. #553) we release. Then we continue to do do updates. So Pharo images are always 100% identifiable by Major+UpdateNumber. When you go to pharo.org, you download the *latest* update. Else we end up getting bug reports for already fixed issues constantly (this happend now already multiple times, and I feel to bad that someone takes such a huge effort to report a bug that we fixed weeks ago). If you want to re-download the version you go weeks ago, there is http://files.pharo.org/image/20/ with a complete history, and it is very easy to download exactly what you downloaded weeks ago, yet all the new people get the newest download. Marcus
+1
To explain:
We have the major version
Pharo2 Pharo3 Pharo4
These are released once per year.
While developing, we do updates. At some point (e.g. #553) we release. Then we continue to do do updates.
So Pharo images are always 100% identifiable by Major+UpdateNumber.
When you go to pharo.org, you download the *latest* update. Else we end up getting bug reports for already fixed issues constantly (this happend now already multiple times, and I feel to bad that someone takes such a huge effort to report a bug that we fixed weeks ago).
If you want to re-download the version you go weeks ago, there is
http://files.pharo.org/image/20/
with a complete history, and it is very easy to download exactly what you downloaded weeks ago, yet all the new people get the newest download.
Marcus
Marcus, imho, the filename "latest.zip" is very good because i can have a unique url to that image. i.e. http://files.pharo.org/image/20/latest.zip On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>wrote:
Hi,
I changed all links to point to the latest 2.0 build on files.pharo.org
Reason:
-> We are fixing bugs, yet people downloading 2.0 do not see the fix -> We had multiple times that people wasted quite some effort re-reporting bugs that are already fixed.
Notes -> the file name "latest.zip" is not good for the image. It should encode that it is the image only and the version number maybe? -> I did not change any VM related download links, but I think we should do the same there.
Marcus
-- Bernardo E.C. Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.
On 2013-06-07, at 20:16, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras <vonbecmann@gmail.com> wrote:
Marcus, imho, the filename "latest.zip" is very good because i can have a unique url to that image. i.e. http://files.pharo.org/image/20/latest.zip
yes exactly that is the reason. we follow no 2 paths: a) the url encodes all the params e.g. http://files.pharo.org/image/20/latest.zip b) the file encodes all the params http://files.pharo.org/image/20/Pharo-Image-2.0-latest.zip we use a) in tools (like get.pharo.org) and b) for the link on the website. btw, you can see the list of files under http://files.pharo.org/
Camillo, thanks. great. understood! On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com>wrote:
On 2013-06-07, at 20:16, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras <vonbecmann@gmail.com> wrote:
Marcus, imho, the filename "latest.zip" is very good because i can have a unique url to that image. i.e. http://files.pharo.org/image/20/latest.zip
yes exactly that is the reason. we follow no 2 paths: a) the url encodes all the params e.g. http://files.pharo.org/image/20/latest.zip b) the file encodes all the params http://files.pharo.org/image/20/Pharo-Image-2.0-latest.zip
we use a) in tools (like get.pharo.org) and b) for the link on the website. btw, you can see the list of files under http://files.pharo.org/
-- Bernardo E.C. Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.
participants (5)
-
Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras -
btc＠openinworld.com -
Camillo Bruni -
Marcus Denker -
Stéphane Ducasse