October 2015 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI

by Yuriy Tymchuk

You can exclude some of the combinations from matrix. E.g. exclude build for 30 & development. > On 01 Oct 2015, at 14:04, Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote: > > On 01-10-15 10:05, Peter Uhnak wrote: >> In Jenkins you specify configuration matrix (versions of pharo versus type (development, stable, ...)).. So it will run development for all versions, even pharo 30 (which is now permanently broken) > > Shouldn't #'development' for Pharo3.x then point to #'stable'? > There is no development, there could be bugfixes. > > The matrix indeed assumes that you want all combinations, > while what we actually need for the build is something like > the Matrix Combinations Plugin > https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Matrix+Combinations+Plugin > I haven't tested the plugin yet. > > Stephan > > >

Oct. 1, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI

by Stephan Eggermont

On 01-10-15 10:05, Peter Uhnak wrote: > In Jenkins you specify configuration matrix (versions of pharo versus type (development, stable, ...)).. So it will run development for all versions, even pharo 30 (which is now permanently broken) Shouldn't #'development' for Pharo3.x then point to #'stable'? There is no development, there could be bugfixes. The matrix indeed assumes that you want all combinations, while what we actually need for the build is something like the Matrix Combinations Plugin https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Matrix+Combinations+Plugin I haven't tested the plugin yet. Stephan

Oct. 1, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI

by Damien Cassou

phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> writes: > Which is a pain as when I copy/paste a shell script full of those, I won't > do that. I agree that's a pain. But you have to do it. > Is this also doing the same thing in blocks like: > > [[[label=.bashrc|caption=Ajouts Ã .bashrc|language=bash > > ${SOMEVAR:-} > > ]]] text between [[[ and ]]] is used verbatim and thus not parsed by Pillar. You can safely use Pillar-protected characters in there and they won't be interpreted. > I am not gonna escape those things as what happens is copy/pasting code. > That there are no such directives in Markdiwn is what makes it nice to use > and hassle free. this is also what makes Markdown less powerful. We had to find a compromise. I think the ${tag}$ is a good one because it is pluggable. We can use it for many things: file inclusion, table of content declaration, bibliography citations, any plugin you can think of. > I would escape your directives and leave the core of the text alone. I didn't get that. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill

Oct. 1, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI

by Damien Cassou

phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> writes: > Downloaded the book-skeleton, patched the download script so that it gets > the centos things right and the Pharo4VM. > > Now, changes in Pillar made my books unsuable, namely the introduction of > things like this: > > ${tag:parameter=value|parameter2=value2}$ > > > made contents with bash shell scripts unparsable. indeed, sorry about that. This new syntax breaks existing documents. Nevertheless, this new syntax has been created exactly for the purpose of limiting future problems: new syntax will not be necessary most of the time because ${tag}$ is pluggable. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill

Oct. 1, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI

by Damien Cassou

phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> writes: > Ok, where? in Pharo 3, open the Catalog Browser, choose Pillar, and click "Install Stable Version". You will get 2 warnings you can safely ignore. You can run the unit tests to check everything works fine (Pillar contains 2198 unit tests, in this version, covering 92% of the source code). -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill

Oct. 1, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI

by Marcus Denker

> On 01 Oct 2015, at 10:07, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > Is CI an archive? > What I mean: it seems to me not possible to keep all CI build alive âforeverâ as a CI server build. Shouldnât we separate âarchival of buildsâ from âactive ciâ? For Pharo itself we do that, as we do not have the manpower (we just donât) to keep the CI alive for stable and dev, yet every build ever is on files.pharo.org <http://files.pharo.org/> *forever*, archived. Marcus >> On 01 Oct 2015, at 10:05, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com <mailto:i.uhnak@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> In Jenkins you specify configuration matrix (versions of pharo versus type (development, stable, ...)).. So it will run development for all versions, even pharo 30 (which is now permanently broken) >> From: Stephan Eggermont <mailto:stephan@stack.nl> >> Sent: â10/â1/â2015 9:47 AM >> To: pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> >> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI >> >> On 01-10-15 09:41, Stephan Eggermont wrote: >> > On 30-09-15 19:57, Ferlicot D. Cyril wrote: >> > >> >> We removed the Pillar job for Pharo 3 because we introduced an new >> >> feature not backward compatible. >> > >> > Why is that a reason to remove the build? You have a configuration, >> > don't you? >> >> I would suggest: move to a separate job that is run much less often >> and doesn't keep so many old artifacts. That makes it easier to get old >> stuff running again. >> >> Stephan >> >> >> >

Oct. 1, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI

by Marcus Denker

Is CI an archive? > On 01 Oct 2015, at 10:05, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In Jenkins you specify configuration matrix (versions of pharo versus type (development, stable, ...)).. So it will run development for all versions, even pharo 30 (which is now permanently broken) > From: Stephan Eggermont <mailto:stephan@stack.nl> > Sent: â10/â1/â2015 9:47 AM > To: pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI > > On 01-10-15 09:41, Stephan Eggermont wrote: > > On 30-09-15 19:57, Ferlicot D. Cyril wrote: > > > >> We removed the Pillar job for Pharo 3 because we introduced an new > >> feature not backward compatible. > > > > Why is that a reason to remove the build? You have a configuration, > > don't you? > > I would suggest: move to a separate job that is run much less often > and doesn't keep so many old artifacts. That makes it easier to get old > stuff running again. > > Stephan > > >

Oct. 1, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI

by Peter Uhnak

In Jenkins you specify configuration matrix (versions of pharo versus type (development, stable, ...)).. So it will run development for all versions, even pharo 30 (which is now permanently broken) -----Original Message----- From: "Stephan Eggermont" <stephan(a)stack.nl> Sent: â10/â1/â2015 9:47 AM To: "pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org" <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI On 01-10-15 09:41, Stephan Eggermont wrote: > On 30-09-15 19:57, Ferlicot D. Cyril wrote: > >> We removed the Pillar job for Pharo 3 because we introduced an new >> feature not backward compatible. > > Why is that a reason to remove the build? You have a configuration, > don't you? I would suggest: move to a separate job that is run much less often and doesn't keep so many old artifacts. That makes it easier to get old stuff running again. Stephan

Oct. 1, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI

by Stephan Eggermont

On 01-10-15 09:41, Stephan Eggermont wrote: > On 30-09-15 19:57, Ferlicot D. Cyril wrote: > >> We removed the Pillar job for Pharo 3 because we introduced an new >> feature not backward compatible. > > Why is that a reason to remove the build? You have a configuration, > don't you? I would suggest: move to a separate job that is run much less often and doesn't keep so many old artifacts. That makes it easier to get old stuff running again. Stephan

Oct. 1, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Pillar for 30 gone the way of the dodo on the CI

by Stephan Eggermont

On 30-09-15 19:57, Ferlicot D. Cyril wrote: > We removed the Pillar job for Pharo 3 because we introduced an new > feature not backward compatible. Why is that a reason to remove the build? You have a configuration, don't you? Stephan

Oct. 1, 2015