[Pharo-project] Pastell is now migrated to SmalltalkHub and has a nice CI job
Stef wrote:
Pastell is now migrated to SmalltalkHub and has a nice CI job
Please note that previously ConfigurationOfPastell had the versions: 1.0, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.0.4 and now has the versions: 1.0, 1.1., 1.2, 1.3 That broke other configurations that depend for instance on 1.0.4 and it adds a lot of confusion! Why didnt you just continue with 1.0.5 or 2.0? Thanks T.
On Mar 3, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
Stef wrote:
Pastell is now migrated to SmalltalkHub and has a nice CI job
Please note that previously ConfigurationOfPastell had the versions: 1.0, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.0.4 and now
where?
has the versions: 1.0, 1.1., 1.2, 1.3
That broke other configurations that depend for instance on 1.0.4
this is strange because when I queried the repository I only got Name: ConfigurationOfPastell-AlexandreBergel.2 Author: AlexandreBergel Time: 12 September 2012, 11:43:37.215 am UUID: ddd4217f-9fd0-234c-9669-e02e8634e984 Ancestors: ConfigurationOfPastell-AlexandreBergel.1 1.0 : First shoot! no tbn.4 and not 5 Now when I look at it with the MC browser I see more. So I redid everything for nothing. Fucking crappy system. and the version was only baseline10: spec <version: '1.0-baseline'> spec for: #'common' do: [ spec blessing: #'baseline'. spec repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/Pastell'. spec package: 'Pastell'. spec group: 'default' with: #('Pastell' ). ]. so just an illusion. no dependency at all on XMLParser. Then the packages pastell-base was wrong since the tests could not work.
and it adds a lot of confusion!
Nice to tell me that I spent my sunday on doing bullshit. :) Squeaksource is the confusion and if nobody moves then nothing will ever change. Have a look at the repo on smalltalkhub and you will see that apparently the two last files were not given to me when I used my ****automatic***** migration scriptâ¦. scary! Now if squeaksource does not serve all the files. We should really run away!
Why didnt you just continue with 1.0.5 or 2.0?
Why people started to have 1.0.2 after 1.0? What is the reason? Then may be we should start also to have 1.0.0.0.1 to have enough digits. I hate this numbering and I see no value beside bad marketing like seaside 3.0.2.a
Thanks T.
Semantic versionning? http://semver.org/ In that case, the 3 numbers major.minor.patch are used this way: - the last is changed for bugfix only - the second is changed for new functionality only with 100% backward compatibility - the first is changed when backward compatibility is broken Nicolas 2013/3/3 stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr>:
On Mar 3, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
Stef wrote:
Pastell is now migrated to SmalltalkHub and has a nice CI job
Please note that previously ConfigurationOfPastell had the versions: 1.0, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.0.4 and now
where?
has the versions: 1.0, 1.1., 1.2, 1.3
That broke other configurations that depend for instance on 1.0.4
this is strange because when I queried the repository I only got
Name: ConfigurationOfPastell-AlexandreBergel.2 Author: AlexandreBergel Time: 12 September 2012, 11:43:37.215 am UUID: ddd4217f-9fd0-234c-9669-e02e8634e984 Ancestors: ConfigurationOfPastell-AlexandreBergel.1
1.0 : First shoot! no tbn.4 and not 5
Now when I look at it with the MC browser I see more. So I redid everything for nothing. Fucking crappy system.
and the version was only
baseline10: spec <version: '1.0-baseline'>
spec for: #'common' do: [ spec blessing: #'baseline'. spec repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/Pastell'. spec package: 'Pastell'. spec group: 'default' with: #('Pastell' ). ].
so just an illusion. no dependency at all on XMLParser. Then the packages pastell-base was wrong since the tests could not work.
and it adds a lot of confusion!
Nice to tell me that I spent my sunday on doing bullshit. :) Squeaksource is the confusion and if nobody moves then nothing will ever change.
Have a look at the repo on smalltalkhub and you will see that apparently the two last files were not given to me when I used my ****automatic***** migration scriptâ¦. scary!
Now if squeaksource does not serve all the files. We should really run away!
Why didnt you just continue with 1.0.5 or 2.0?
Why people started to have 1.0.2 after 1.0? What is the reason? Then may be we should start also to have 1.0.0.0.1 to have enough digits.
I hate this numbering and I see no value beside bad marketing like seaside 3.0.2.a
Thanks T.
Hi nicolas
Semantic versionning? http://semver.org/
thanks for the pointer. I could follow it. But we should have tool support for that.
In that case, the 3 numbers major.minor.patch are used this way:
- the last is changed for bugfix only - the second is changed for new functionality only with 100% backward compatibility - the first is changed when backward compatibility is broken
so if you have a non working system with number 1.0 and after you get all the tests green because you load the correct dependent library then it means that you should get 1.1. Because making a system working for real is not a patch. Stef
Nicolas
2013/3/3 stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr>:
On Mar 3, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
Stef wrote:
Pastell is now migrated to SmalltalkHub and has a nice CI job
Please note that previously ConfigurationOfPastell had the versions: 1.0, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.0.4 and now
where?
has the versions: 1.0, 1.1., 1.2, 1.3
That broke other configurations that depend for instance on 1.0.4
this is strange because when I queried the repository I only got
Name: ConfigurationOfPastell-AlexandreBergel.2 Author: AlexandreBergel Time: 12 September 2012, 11:43:37.215 am UUID: ddd4217f-9fd0-234c-9669-e02e8634e984 Ancestors: ConfigurationOfPastell-AlexandreBergel.1
1.0 : First shoot! no tbn.4 and not 5
Now when I look at it with the MC browser I see more. So I redid everything for nothing. Fucking crappy system.
and the version was only
baseline10: spec <version: '1.0-baseline'>
spec for: #'common' do: [ spec blessing: #'baseline'. spec repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/Pastell'. spec package: 'Pastell'. spec group: 'default' with: #('Pastell' ). ].
so just an illusion. no dependency at all on XMLParser. Then the packages pastell-base was wrong since the tests could not work.
and it adds a lot of confusion!
Nice to tell me that I spent my sunday on doing bullshit. :) Squeaksource is the confusion and if nobody moves then nothing will ever change.
Have a look at the repo on smalltalkhub and you will see that apparently the two last files were not given to me when I used my ****automatic***** migration scriptâ¦. scary!
Now if squeaksource does not serve all the files. We should really run away!
Why didnt you just continue with 1.0.5 or 2.0?
Why people started to have 1.0.2 after 1.0? What is the reason? Then may be we should start also to have 1.0.0.0.1 to have enough digits.
I hate this numbering and I see no value beside bad marketing like seaside 3.0.2.a
Thanks T.
So what do we do? because frankly I'm fed up and when I see 10 then 102 for a baseline when we had dependency to a project that else makes sure that the system does not work at all I'm puzzled. Now I do not have the time to change that. if you have go ahead. A bit of rigor and consistency would help. I do not understand why programmer number things like that at leas we should have 1.1 1.2 2.0 means major changes to me 1.0.2 does not mean nothing. Stef
participants (3)
-
Nicolas Cellier -
stephane ducasse -
Torsten Bergmann