[Pharo-project] How to load MetacelloToolbox
we recently pushed MetacelloToolbox into Pharo2.0. However we have tons of undeclared references. Where do I find the complete sources?
because MetacelloToolbox shouldn't be in 2.0, I told you :) On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
we recently pushed MetacelloToolbox into Pharo2.0. However we have tons of undeclared references.
Where do I find the complete sources?
Out of curiosity, what are some of the undeclared references? There shouldn't be any undeclared references, unless you ignored the required packages or ??? offhand I can't imagine what they might be... Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 6:51:42 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] How to load MetacelloToolbox | | because MetacelloToolbox shouldn't be in 2.0, I told you :) | | On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> | wrote: | | > we recently pushed MetacelloToolbox into Pharo2.0. | > However we have tons of undeclared references. | > | > Where do I find the complete sources? | > | | |
On Nov 3, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote:
Out of curiosity, what are some of the undeclared references?
There shouldn't be any undeclared references, unless you ignored the required packages or ??? offhand I can't imagine what they might be...
I checked the latest 2.0 image and there are no Undeclareds there... With the build server dead (again...) checking of something is destroyed there we need to wait... -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
Anyway what would be the default way to install it? AFAIK I didn't find any reference in the ConfigurationOfMetacello but then again I am not particularly at searching :P On 2012-11-04, at 11:27, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote:
Out of curiosity, what are some of the undeclared references?
There shouldn't be any undeclared references, unless you ignored the required packages or ??? offhand I can't imagine what they might be...
I checked the latest 2.0 image and there are no Undeclareds there...
With the build server dead (again...) checking of something is destroyed there we need to wait...
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
ConfigurationOfMetacello ... load: 'Metacello-ToolBox'. should doit, and the baseline says: package: 'Metacello-ToolBox' with: [ spec requires: #('Metacello-Base' 'Metacello-Core') ]; and the "already included" metacello should be what is in the 'batch' group (Base and some Github access stuff). And I insist, including MetacelloToolBox in the 2.0 core image is a bad idea... Esteban On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway what would be the default way to install it?
AFAIK I didn't find any reference in the ConfigurationOfMetacello but then again I am not particularly at searching :P
On 2012-11-04, at 11:27, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote:
Out of curiosity, what are some of the undeclared references?
There shouldn't be any undeclared references, unless you ignored the required packages or ??? offhand I can't imagine what they might be...
I checked the latest 2.0 image and there are no Undeclareds there...
With the build server dead (again...) checking of something is destroyed there we need to wait...
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
Esteban, If I'm not mistaken the MetacelloToolBox is a candidate for inclusion to support Versionner. If you are getting Github stuff in Pharo2.0, then I am curious which version of Metacello you are using. The #stable version of Metacello doesn't include github. The github support stuff needs OSProcess and from what I understand OSProcess won't be included in Pharo2.0, so perhaps you are more concerned about the GitHub support than MetacelloToolBox? I really can't think of anything in MetacelloToolBox that makes it a "bad idea" to include in Pharo2.0. I think that you might be happier if you stuck with 1.0-beta.31.1.5 as that predates the github support. Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:37:29 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] How to load MetacelloToolbox | | ConfigurationOfMetacello ... load: 'Metacello-ToolBox'. | | should doit, and the baseline says: | | package: 'Metacello-ToolBox' with: [ spec requires: | #('Metacello-Base' 'Metacello-Core') ]; | | | and the "already included" metacello should be what is in the 'batch' | group (Base and some Github access stuff). | | And I insist, including MetacelloToolBox in the 2.0 core image is a | bad idea... | | Esteban | | On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> | wrote: | | > Anyway what would be the default way to install it? | > | > AFAIK I didn't find any reference in the ConfigurationOfMetacello | > but then again I am not particularly at searching :P | > | > On 2012-11-04, at 11:27, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> | > wrote: | >> On Nov 3, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> | >> wrote: | >> | >>> Out of curiosity, what are some of the undeclared references? | >>> | >>> There shouldn't be any undeclared references, unless you ignored | >>> the required packages or ??? offhand I can't imagine what they | >>> might be... | >> | >> | >> I checked the latest 2.0 image and there are no Undeclareds | >> there... | >> | >> With the build server dead (again...) checking of something is | >> destroyed there we need to wait... | >> | >> | >> -- | >> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de | >> | >> | > | > | | |
Hi Dale, On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote:
Esteban,
If I'm not mistaken the MetacelloToolBox is a candidate for inclusion to support Versionner.
damn! I didn't though in that :)
If you are getting Github stuff in Pharo2.0, then I am curious which version of Metacello you are using. The #stable version of Metacello doesn't include github.
The github support stuff needs OSProcess and from what I understand OSProcess won't be included in Pharo2.0, so perhaps you are more concerned about the GitHub support than MetacelloToolBox?
no idea, I just checked the latest baseline, and probably not the used one (sunday mode, today :)
I really can't think of anything in MetacelloToolBox that makes it a "bad idea" to include in Pharo2.0.
well.. is not about the toolbox, is about over-bloating the image... but the Versionner needs are a good point for its inclusion :) anyway, the most important thing is to be sure that packages we include and correspond to dev-support are unloadable when you do a shrink for production, and Metacello completelly fulfills that requirement :)
I think that you might be happier if you stuck with 1.0-beta.31.1.5 as that predates the github support.
as I said, this was my mistake on checking the baseline... github is not in current 2.0 images. Esteabn
Dale
----- Original Message ----- | From: "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:37:29 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] How to load MetacelloToolbox | | ConfigurationOfMetacello ... load: 'Metacello-ToolBox'. | | should doit, and the baseline says: | | package: 'Metacello-ToolBox' with: [ spec requires: | #('Metacello-Base' 'Metacello-Core') ]; | | | and the "already included" metacello should be what is in the 'batch' | group (Base and some Github access stuff). | | And I insist, including MetacelloToolBox in the 2.0 core image is a | bad idea... | | Esteban | | On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> | wrote: | | > Anyway what would be the default way to install it? | > | > AFAIK I didn't find any reference in the ConfigurationOfMetacello | > but then again I am not particularly at searching :P | > | > On 2012-11-04, at 11:27, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> | > wrote: | >> On Nov 3, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> | >> wrote: | >> | >>> Out of curiosity, what are some of the undeclared references? | >>> | >>> There shouldn't be any undeclared references, unless you ignored | >>> the required packages or ??? offhand I can't imagine what they | >>> might be... | >> | >> | >> I checked the latest 2.0 image and there are no Undeclareds | >> there... | >> | >> With the build server dead (again...) checking of something is | >> destroyed there we need to wait... | >> | >> | >> -- | >> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de | >> | >> | > | > | | |
We looked a bit at OSProcess in 2.0 with Mariano on Friday. We tried to have clean loading (i.e., remove FileDirectory references + a couple of other stuff). We also spotted some inconsistencies in the ConfigurationOfOSProcess. I'm going to continue what we started but I don't think I will be able to make all the tests pass (if I remember well, they are not passing in 1.4 summer neither...) Where should I commit the changes? On 04/11/12 11:57, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
Hi Dale,
On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote:
Esteban,
If I'm not mistaken the MetacelloToolBox is a candidate for inclusion to support Versionner.
damn! I didn't though in that :)
If you are getting Github stuff in Pharo2.0, then I am curious which version of Metacello you are using. The #stable version of Metacello doesn't include github.
The github support stuff needs OSProcess and from what I understand OSProcess won't be included in Pharo2.0, so perhaps you are more concerned about the GitHub support than MetacelloToolBox?
no idea, I just checked the latest baseline, and probably not the used one (sunday mode, today :)
I really can't think of anything in MetacelloToolBox that makes it a "bad idea" to include in Pharo2.0.
well.. is not about the toolbox, is about over-bloating the image... but the Versionner needs are a good point for its inclusion :) anyway, the most important thing is to be sure that packages we include and correspond to dev-support are unloadable when you do a shrink for production, and Metacello completelly fulfills that requirement :)
I think that you might be happier if you stuck with 1.0-beta.31.1.5 as that predates the github support.
as I said, this was my mistake on checking the baseline... github is not in current 2.0 images.
Esteabn
Dale
----- Original Message ----- | From: "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:37:29 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] How to load MetacelloToolbox | | ConfigurationOfMetacello ... load: 'Metacello-ToolBox'. | | should doit, and the baseline says: | | package: 'Metacello-ToolBox' with: [ spec requires: | #('Metacello-Base' 'Metacello-Core') ]; | | | and the "already included" metacello should be what is in the 'batch' | group (Base and some Github access stuff). | | And I insist, including MetacelloToolBox in the 2.0 core image is a | bad idea... | | Esteban | | On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> | wrote: | | > Anyway what would be the default way to install it? | > | > AFAIK I didn't find any reference in the ConfigurationOfMetacello | > but then again I am not particularly at searching :P | > | > On 2012-11-04, at 11:27, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> | > wrote: | >> On Nov 3, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> | >> wrote: | >> | >>> Out of curiosity, what are some of the undeclared references? | >>> | >>> There shouldn't be any undeclared references, unless you ignored | >>> the required packages or ??? offhand I can't imagine what they | >>> might be... | >> | >> | >> I checked the latest 2.0 image and there are no Undeclareds | >> there... | >> | >> With the build server dead (again...) checking of something is | >> destroyed there we need to wait... | >> | >> | >> -- | >> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de | >> | >> | > | > | | |
-- http://tulipemoutarde.be CA: +1 778 558 3225 BE: +32 65 709 131
We looked a bit at OSProcess in 2.0 with Mariano on Friday. We tried to have clean loading (i.e., remove FileDirectory references + a couple of other stuff). We also spotted some inconsistencies in the ConfigurationOfOSProcess.
Good!
I'm going to continue what we started but I don't think I will be able to make all the tests pass (if I remember well, they are not passing in 1.4 summer neither...)
Where should I commit the changes?
if you cannot in the os repo you can in the PharoTaskForces but let us wait that david reply. stef
On 04/11/12 11:57, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
Hi Dale,
On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote:
Esteban,
If I'm not mistaken the MetacelloToolBox is a candidate for inclusion to support Versionner.
damn! I didn't though in that :)
If you are getting Github stuff in Pharo2.0, then I am curious which version of Metacello you are using. The #stable version of Metacello doesn't include github.
The github support stuff needs OSProcess and from what I understand OSProcess won't be included in Pharo2.0, so perhaps you are more concerned about the GitHub support than MetacelloToolBox?
no idea, I just checked the latest baseline, and probably not the used one (sunday mode, today :)
I really can't think of anything in MetacelloToolBox that makes it a "bad idea" to include in Pharo2.0.
well.. is not about the toolbox, is about over-bloating the image... but the Versionner needs are a good point for its inclusion :) anyway, the most important thing is to be sure that packages we include and correspond to dev-support are unloadable when you do a shrink for production, and Metacello completelly fulfills that requirement :)
I think that you might be happier if you stuck with 1.0-beta.31.1.5 as that predates the github support.
as I said, this was my mistake on checking the baseline... github is not in current 2.0 images.
Esteabn
Dale
----- Original Message ----- | From: "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:37:29 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] How to load MetacelloToolbox | | ConfigurationOfMetacello ... load: 'Metacello-ToolBox'. | | should doit, and the baseline says: | | package: 'Metacello-ToolBox' with: [ spec requires: | #('Metacello-Base' 'Metacello-Core') ]; | | | and the "already included" metacello should be what is in the 'batch' | group (Base and some Github access stuff). | | And I insist, including MetacelloToolBox in the 2.0 core image is a | bad idea... | | Esteban | | On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> | wrote: | | > Anyway what would be the default way to install it? | > | > AFAIK I didn't find any reference in the ConfigurationOfMetacello | > but then again I am not particularly at searching :P | > | > On 2012-11-04, at 11:27, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> | > wrote: | >> On Nov 3, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> | >> wrote: | >> | >>> Out of curiosity, what are some of the undeclared references? | >>> | >>> There shouldn't be any undeclared references, unless you ignored | >>> the required packages or ??? offhand I can't imagine what they | >>> might be... | >> | >> | >> I checked the latest 2.0 image and there are no Undeclareds | >> there... | >> | >> With the build server dead (again...) checking of something is | >> destroyed there we need to wait... | >> | >> | >> -- | >> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de | >> | >> | > | > | | |
-- http://tulipemoutarde.be CA: +1 778 558 3225 BE: +32 65 709 131
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 04:14:00PM +0100, St?phane Ducasse wrote:
We looked a bit at OSProcess in 2.0 with Mariano on Friday. We tried to have clean loading (i.e., remove FileDirectory references + a couple of other stuff). We also spotted some inconsistencies in the ConfigurationOfOSProcess.
Good!
I'm going to continue what we started but I don't think I will be able to make all the tests pass (if I remember well, they are not passing in 1.4 summer neither...)
Where should I commit the changes?
if you cannot in the os repo you can in the PharoTaskForces but let us wait that david reply.
Hi, I am open to suggestions :) Doing the work in PharoTaskForces would make sense to me. I don't mind doing integration work to pull things into the OSProcess repository, as long as we do not break the tests for OSProcess running in Squeak. But I am quite familiar with the Squeak environment, so it probably makes sense for me to do the work of testing that. Overall my time is kind of limited so it is better for me of others can do the Pharo development. In the CommandShell repository, I have a package called "CommandShellPharo" for compatibility things. Maybe we should have something similar like "OSProcessPharo" for OSProcess? Note that I am suggesting "CommandShellPharo" and "OSProcessPharo" rather than "CommandShell-Pharo" and "OSProcess-Pharo" because I still maintain "CommandShell" and "OSProcess" MCZ packages the repositories, so I would like to keep any Squeak/Pharo specifics in distinct packages. If there was an OSProcessPharo (or similar) package in PharoTaskForces, I can copy the updates into the OSProcess repo, or give someone the access to do so (currently Sebastian Sastre and Damien Pollet have developer access). Dave
Ok! Thanks David :) Maybe related but I remember seeing that there's a Coral version of OSProcess or something like that. Is the case? Does anyone have managed to get all the tests green in Pharo 1.4 Summer ? On 04/11/12 16:53, David T. Lewis wrote:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 04:14:00PM +0100, St?phane Ducasse wrote:
We looked a bit at OSProcess in 2.0 with Mariano on Friday. We tried to have clean loading (i.e., remove FileDirectory references + a couple of other stuff). We also spotted some inconsistencies in the ConfigurationOfOSProcess.
Good!
I'm going to continue what we started but I don't think I will be able to make all the tests pass (if I remember well, they are not passing in 1.4 summer neither...)
Where should I commit the changes?
if you cannot in the os repo you can in the PharoTaskForces but let us wait that david reply.
Hi,
I am open to suggestions :)
Doing the work in PharoTaskForces would make sense to me. I don't mind doing integration work to pull things into the OSProcess repository, as long as we do not break the tests for OSProcess running in Squeak. But I am quite familiar with the Squeak environment, so it probably makes sense for me to do the work of testing that. Overall my time is kind of limited so it is better for me of others can do the Pharo development.
In the CommandShell repository, I have a package called "CommandShellPharo" for compatibility things. Maybe we should have something similar like "OSProcessPharo" for OSProcess? Note that I am suggesting "CommandShellPharo" and "OSProcessPharo" rather than "CommandShell-Pharo" and "OSProcess-Pharo" because I still maintain "CommandShell" and "OSProcess" MCZ packages the repositories, so I would like to keep any Squeak/Pharo specifics in distinct packages.
If there was an OSProcessPharo (or similar) package in PharoTaskForces, I can copy the updates into the OSProcess repo, or give someone the access to do so (currently Sebastian Sastre and Damien Pollet have developer access).
Dave
-- http://tulipemoutarde.be +32 65 709 131
If I'm not mistaken the MetacelloToolBox is a candidate for inclusion to support Versionner.
damn! I didn't though in that :)
If you are getting Github stuff in Pharo2.0, then I am curious which version of Metacello you are using. The #stable version of Metacello doesn't include github.
I do not think that we will have the time for that. Lot of bugs to close.
The github support stuff needs OSProcess and from what I understand OSProcess won't be included in Pharo2.0, so perhaps you are more concerned about the GitHub support than MetacelloToolBox?
no idea, I just checked the latest baseline, and probably not the used one (sunday mode, today :)
I really can't think of anything in MetacelloToolBox that makes it a "bad idea" to include in Pharo2.0.
well.. is not about the toolbox, is about over-bloating the image... but the Versionner needs are a good point for its inclusion :) anyway, the most important thing is to be sure that packages we include and correspond to dev-support are unloadable when you do a shrink for production, and Metacello completelly fulfills that requirement :)
Yes We should spend some time on the building process based on metacello and a core to make sure that we keep the system modular. I will try to allocate some time reading Metacello internals. Stef
I think that you might be happier if you stuck with 1.0-beta.31.1.5 as that predates the github support.
as I said, this was my mistake on checking the baseline... github is not in current 2.0 images.
Esteabn
Dale
----- Original Message ----- | From: "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm@gmail.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:37:29 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] How to load MetacelloToolbox | | ConfigurationOfMetacello ... load: 'Metacello-ToolBox'. | | should doit, and the baseline says: | | package: 'Metacello-ToolBox' with: [ spec requires: | #('Metacello-Base' 'Metacello-Core') ]; | | | and the "already included" metacello should be what is in the 'batch' | group (Base and some Github access stuff). | | And I insist, including MetacelloToolBox in the 2.0 core image is a | bad idea... | | Esteban | | On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> | wrote: | | > Anyway what would be the default way to install it? | > | > AFAIK I didn't find any reference in the ConfigurationOfMetacello | > but then again I am not particularly at searching :P | > | > On 2012-11-04, at 11:27, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> | > wrote: | >> On Nov 3, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> | >> wrote: | >> | >>> Out of curiosity, what are some of the undeclared references? | >>> | >>> There shouldn't be any undeclared references, unless you ignored | >>> the required packages or ??? offhand I can't imagine what they | >>> might be... | >> | >> | >> I checked the latest 2.0 image and there are no Undeclareds | >> there... | >> | >> With the build server dead (again...) checking of something is | >> destroyed there we need to wait... | >> | >> | >> -- | >> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de | >> | >> | > | > | | |
Okay, I didn't think that there should be undeclared references showing up because of MetacelloToolBox ... a bug of some sort is more likely the root cause... Thanks, Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Marcus Denker" <marcus.denker@inria.fr> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:27:41 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] How to load MetacelloToolbox | | | On Nov 3, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> | wrote: | | > Out of curiosity, what are some of the undeclared references? | > | > There shouldn't be any undeclared references, unless you ignored | > the required packages or ??? offhand I can't imagine what they | > might be... | | | I checked the latest 2.0 image and there are no Undeclareds there... | | With the build server dead (again...) checking of something is | destroyed there we need to wait... | | | -- | Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de | | |
participants (7)
-
Camillo Bruni -
Dale Henrichs -
David T. Lewis -
Esteban Lorenzano -
Francois Stephany -
Marcus Denker -
Stéphane Ducasse