From: stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@gmail.com> Date: December 3, 2009 8:27:27 PM GMT+01:00 To: metacello@googlegroups.com Cc: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr, Related to the development of Moose and other related tools <moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: duplication between default: and version40beta2:?

apparently we had a differetn definition of map. my point is that we need map with exact numbers of component to be able to reload and build more. Now I like the baseline idea.

On Dec 3, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:

...

In a Metacello context.

The map of packages and their relationships is called a #baseline version. If one loads a #baseline version the latest version of each package is loaded. The "structure" is stable but loading a #baseline version is a risky proposition for everyone except project developers themselves who are prepared to address load-time conflicts/bugs.

A #development version, imports structure from the #baseline, but a specific package version is supplied for each Monticello package or project. When a development version is loaded, the explicit list of package versions are loaded. IN a #development version, the package versions are not finalized and may change over time. When a #development version is saved, there is an presumption that some level of testing has gone on and that the package versions are expected to work together. One can go to a particular version of the package in which the configuration is saved and expect to load the same packages....However, the list of package versions will change over time.

For all other 'released' versions, (beta, release, alpha, stable, etc.) it is expected that the list of package versions will never change - the code base may still be alpha, but it is a stable known point with respect to package versions.

(BTW, I've added the metacello group to this cross-posted message:)

Dale ----- "Stéphane Ducasse" <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

| Still still still you can always have a map (a map of all the | components you loaded that they work or not). | This is orthogonal to a release or just publications. This is a | sofware artefact. I know that you know it. | The fact to have map is orthogonal of the choice latest or one | version. | I just write that for others following our discussion.... | | Stef | | | | On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: | | > Hi, | > | > Not every loading strategy have the same goal or the same context. | > | > Sub projects will be developed and published in their own context | > without taking into account the overall project. However, when | > maintaining the overall project, I want to be able to say "load | > latest" so that I can easily load everything and check whether | > everything still holds together. | > | > For overall release management, I do not want to rely on "load | > latest". Instead I will release a coherent version when I see that | it | > works. This will be a fixed set of packages with exact versions that | | > will work together. | > | > Cheers, | > Doru | > | > | > On 3 Dec 2009, at 14:21, Marcus Denker wrote: | > | >> | >> On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Laval Jannik wrote: | >> | >>> Yeh, | >>> | >>> Now, I understand the process... (I am slow :) ) | >>> | >>> But, in this process we must specify versions and maintain it. | >>> Is there a solution (in monticello maybe) to say a version of a | >>> package is stable. | >>> So in this case, we can say "I want last stable version of my | >>> package" and we do not need to maintain ConfigurationOf. | >>> | >> | >> The problem is that it's not one package... your system will be 20 | | >> packges. You can say " load the latest of all, that works". | >> But: now I want to load the version that worked so great last | month. | >> Which set of packages exactly where that? | >> | >> Tagging single packages as "release" will not help, as you don't | >> have the info which released package works with which other | >> released package. | >> | >> | >> Marcus | >> _______________________________________________ | >> Moose-dev mailing list | >> Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch | >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev | > | > -- | > www.tudorgirba.com | > | > "Obvious things are difficult to teach." | > | > | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > 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