June 2018 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Call for TechTalks

by Marcus Denker

Hi, As you might now, we organised âtech talksâ in the past: https://pharo.org/TechTalk <https://pharo.org/TechTalk> We would like to continue the next half of 2018 with this series. The form itself is quite open: it can be a lecture, a demo, or just some âguidedâ discussion on Discord. If you have ideas â> send me a mail. Marcus

June 15, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Insecure issue tracker registration

by Marcus Denker

Hello, yes, we really need to setup SSL for that server. I will have a look next week. > On 13 Jun 2018, at 10:25, Manuel Leuenberger <leuenberger(a)inf.unibe.ch> wrote: > > Hi, > > I announced my concerns on Discord already, but got no reaction, so I post it here as well to have it properly archived. > > "A colleague just noticed that the registration for the issue tracker is HTTP-only. This is not an appropriate choice for sensitive data like a password. Any possibilities to make this HTTPS-only? > Link: http://tracker.pharo.org/issues-register-service, setting https:// manually does not work" > > From my perspective this is a serious problem that should be quickly addressed, it's not just a nice to have feature. Not treating sensitive data with proper care leaves an image of not caring about user security and looks unprofessional. I don't think that is what Pharo needs. > > Cheers, > Manuel

June 15, 2018

@pharoproject: > 2000 followers

by Marcus Denker

@pharoproject on twitter now has >2000 followers: https://twitter.com/pharoproject

June 15, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Why doesn't Iceberg checkin other assets (scripts) but does check them out?

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 15 Jun 2018, at 10:29, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > > In many parts of the dev world - every commit should be shippable, meaning atomic - particularly with the use of CI systems (Travis, Gitlab etc) that build on every commit. but then, you mean every *push* should be shippable :) thatâs something I agree :) > > Of course you can choose to work a different way - but our tools shouldnât force a very common practice to be awkward, should they? > > I donât understand why many of you guys are so anti such a common thing. Iâm not anti. Being âantiâ requires a lot of effort I prefer to spend on something else :) But in general, I prefer many small commits of tasks. And yes, I prefer those commits to be atomic, but when is not possible I just make sure I do not push until something is finished. > In fact our community pioneered this way of working - a build machine where you loaded all your code and ran all your tests before committing. Also, a large number of agile teams will council to work on master (and avoid branches - a technique we also pioneered). hahâ¦ we pioneered it as a technique basically because our tools were not capable of branching properly, but well, It can be a way to minimise integration problems, yes (depends on the team, of course). > In todayâs world where we live in a wider polyglot stack this is one of the reasons why git is so attractive as it should easily embraces that. > > I get that itâs not quite possible yet - but there are some decent ways to accommodate this (a staging operation, or perhaps a better way to make use of the #addToIndex: which I will experiment with). I think the easiest/fastest way to handle this is to add a âspecial commitâ plugin which could export sources and then delegate commit to an external tool. And it could be a plugin because then people wanting to work with it can load it independently. > Anyway, Iâll shut up - and possibly will learn how to implement it myself. Thinking more, I may also be able run with commit and no push , which I will try - as itâs probably the easiest mechanism if the CI will recognise that (I think it will). do not shut up :) your opinions and considerations are good and a good way to see a different pov that may be better than ours. > > Thanks for the enlightening conversation, and as always the hard work on iceberg that made this conversation even possible. thank you Esteban > > Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 15 Jun 2018, at 07:11, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>> wrote: > >> >> >> Am 14.06.2018 um 13:12 schrieb Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goubier@gmail.com>>: >> >>> Hi Norbert, Tim, >>> >>> 2018-06-14 11:33 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>: >>> >>> >>>> Am 14.06.2018 um 10:30 schrieb Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works <mailto:tim@testit.works>>: >>>> >>>> Hi - yes Iâm pleased you check out the entire tree, although currently itâs a bit confusing that you do (fortunately this does give the possibility that we can checkout images and other resources that an Pharo application might rely on - without having to resort to the Seaside FileLibrary trick). >>>> >>>> However my concrete case was that I have a gitlab ci pipeline and next to my src directory in my project I have a config directory that has some Nginx config for my teapot app. If I add a teapot route, I also need to adjust that config and check both changes in together. I canât easily do that now? >>>> >>>> I can modify /config/app.nginx either in another app (intellij) or even in the simple Pharo text editor, and the I can add my new route in my DemoApp>>createRoutes method but how do I check them in together so my pipeline will build atomically? >>>> >>>> Iceberg hasnât written out the changes yet, so IntelliJ canât see them to do a commit, and iceberg ignores the parallel /config directory (that it checked out). So itâs a catch 22. >>>> >>>> This is why I suggested maybe we could specify safer (textual) directories that iceberg might also checkin? OR we have a Stage command in iceberg that does everything that commit does up to the point of actually writing to the repo - then I could jump to IntelliJ and do the final commit there and use its tools to manage non Pharo stuff (until we can build more)? >>>> >>>> Does this make sense? >>>> >>> I donât understand why you are so eager to have everything into one commit. Usually the tension is rather have small commits. What is the problem of having two commits for this? >>> >>> A single commit allow one to make sure that both the smalltalk code and the external resource are well in sync, and that you may not ending up in a situation were at commit j has data format v1 and smalltalk code for format v2, because it is in commit j+1 that you rewrote the data in format v2. >>> >> Yes, sure but that is only a problem if you lost control over which commit goes into action. I think the problem is in the deployment then. Putting integrity constraints on commits is IMHO the wrong level deployment granularity >> >> Norbert >> >>> I had that issue recently with a Pharo / FPGA project with a Pharo package generating state machines to be integrated in a Verilog FPGA design with C code for the drivers, the softcore in the FPGA, and test programs, and both Pharo and the C/FPGA working out of the same test data... And that whole thing getting regularly out of sync. >>> >>> IMHO: I'd model a concept of "multi-lingual projet" for that sort of things, where one can list, in Pharo, Monticello packages and external files or directories. Whatever the technology you use (OSProcess, libgit, whatever...) it is easy then to commit all this in a single pass. On a per-package basis, I'd see the package manifest as a suitable place for listing external resources. On a per-project basis, a possible place could be the manifest for the BaselineOf the project. >>> >>> Thierry >>> >>> >>> Norbert >>> >>>> As an aside - Iâd really like to checkin in the play-xxx directories (the .ph files) as there is often useful playground stuff Iâd like to access on my home computer. We canât do that easily at the moment either. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 14 Jun 2018, at 09:12, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com <mailto:guillermopolito@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just to complement Esteban's answer: >>>>> >>>>> - Iceberg checks out in disk more than the src directory because you **may** want to edit files from the command line, and after long discussions we did not want to forbid that. >>>>> Actually, just to put everybody in perspective, at first the idea was to not have a working copy in disk at all, but just hit to the blob. >>>>> Imagine is nowadays we are a bit alien, that would have been worst :) >>>>> >>>>> - About checking in files. I'd like to understand what you mean exactly. >>>>> - Do you want to load them into memory? >>>>> This would be the "more consistent" way to do it, following the "the image it its own working copy" metaphore. >>>>> This would allow us to, for example, share an image and transparently share resources with it (without requiring to clone). >>>>> But this would have some impact in memory consumption and add stress to the GC, right? >>>>> >>>>> - Or do you mean to ask like any other Git client and show you the file differences between the working copy and the git index? >>>>> The problem with this approach is that we will have some treatment for pharo code and some different treatment for non-code... >>>>> If I do a change to a class, the change is kept in the image. But if I do a change to a file, that change is not kept in the image! >>>>> >>>>> Also, as Esteban says, having an IDE with support for files would mean that we would need good tools to edit in-memory files (not only text files, right? but also any kind of binary file...) >>>>> >>>>> So far we cover the bare minimum that allows us to *not lose* changes :) >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works <mailto:tim@testit.works>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > yeahâ¦ but is a lot of work and no time just right now. >>>>> > long term, it would be cool to manage everything from iceberg. >>>>> > but reality check, is a huge amount of work so it has to come step by step. >>>>> >>>>> Fair enough - its pretty cool weâve got this far, and I guess the onus is on the rest of us to learn more about how its done and see if we can contribute more somehow. I really appreciate the love youâve already put into this - it works far better than I think we even realised it could. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:55, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> On 13 Jun 2018, at 22:44, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works <mailto:tim@testit.works>> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Esteban - so I don't then understand why iceberg (usefully in my view) checks out more than the src directory, if itâs only focusing on the Pharo blob? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Iâm guessing that by knowing where the src is, you are just committing that part of the tree with libgit? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Perhaps from a pragmatic first step you might consider letting us add a second safe resources directory that you could check in atomically as well (on the understanding all bets are off if it goes wrong?) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> OR could we have a check in mode does all the add/remove operations and writes to disk but then letâs you drop to the command line/other tool to add any other files and do the final commit? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I just feel like you/we are so close to something that works a bit more broadly and embrace the wider world.? >>>>> > >>>>> > yeahâ¦ but is a lot of work and no time just right now. >>>>> > long term, it would be cool to manage everything from iceberg. >>>>> > but reality check, is a huge amount of work so it has to come step by step. >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Tim >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> hi, >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 16:50, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works <mailto:tim@testit.works>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi - my second attempt at using Pharo with Git has proven very satisfying (I saw the potential in phase 1, but it was often difficult to understand what was happening and the workflow to use). >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> One thing that has come up a few times for me however - and its something that using git nicely highlights, there are many non-smalltalk assets in my project that donât need to live in the image (like Seaside FileLibraries were trying to do) but do need to be versioned and be part of my project. Common examples are server config files, images and even the playground history files that are useful to pull up when on another computer. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> It seems that while Iceberg does check out a full project, if I change any of the files outside of the src directory (like edit a .txt file using the crude Pharo file editor), those changes donât get committed when I do a checkin? Is this on purpose? It makes the workflow a bit trickier to do an atomic commit of a piece of work - and Iâm not clear whether this is a conscious thing, or an MVP thing (and it will come later). >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> workflow is tricker because you are expecting iceberg to talk with the local working copy and to handle that WC. >>>>> >>> what happens in fact is different: iceberg treats the image as a working copy itself (it has its own âstageâ area) and what you have in disk is like a separated WC. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> at least, this is the metaphor we are using now, because we cannot realistically handle/control what is in disk since it can be anything. >>>>> >>> So, instead having this picture in mind: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Image -> Disk -> Git blob (database) >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> you need to have this other: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Image \ >>>>> >>> Git blob (database) >>>>> >>> Disk / >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> you will see as soon as you change the mental image, your problems are gone ;) >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> cheers! >>>>> >>> Esteban >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> ps: diagram before is not exactly as it is since the image actually writes into disk first, but this is an implementation detail we would like to remove in the future, even. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> As mentioned above, I was also thinking it would be nice if I could checkin some of the play-xxxx/*.sh files to essentially keep some of that history synced between environments (or team members?). >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> It strikes me that this is the kind of thing that git integration should bring to us? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I can overlay my copy of IntelliJ on top of my local iceberg directory and then use it for checkins - but then I still have the atomic problem, as its only when I commit that tonel files are written out onto the file system for me to checkin along with any other assets Iâve changed. Does anyone else have a good workflow for this? What do you guys do? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Tim >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Guille Polito >>>>> Research Engineer >>>>> >>>>> Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille >>>>> CRIStAL - UMR 9189 >>>>> French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr <http://www.cnrs.fr/> >>>>> >>>>> Web: http://guillep.github.io <http://guillep.github.io/> >>>>> Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13 >>> >>>

June 15, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Why doesn't Iceberg checkin other assets (scripts) but does check them out?

by Guillermo Polito

Hi Tim, On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:31 AM Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > In many parts of the dev world - every commit should be shippable, meaning > atomic - particularly with the use of CI systems (Travis, Gitlab etc) that > build on every commit. > > Of course you can choose to work a different way - but our tools shouldnât > force a very common practice to be awkward, should they? > > I donât understand why many of you guys are so anti such a common thing. > In fact our community pioneered this way of working - a build machine where > you loaded all your code and ran all your tests before committing. Also, > a large number of agile teams will council to work on master (and avoid > branches - a technique we also pioneered). > In todayâs world where we live in a wider polyglot stack this is one of > the reasons why git is so attractive as it should easily embraces that. > > I get that itâs not quite possible yet - but there are some decent ways to > accommodate this (a staging operation, or perhaps a better way to make use > of the #addToIndex: which I will experiment with). > > Anyway, Iâll shut up - and possibly will learn how to implement it myself. > Thinking more, I may also be able run with commit and no push , which I > will try - as itâs probably the easiest mechanism if the CI will recognise > that (I think it will). > Please don't shut up ^^. I really value the feedback. I see myself the value of both small and atomic/self-contained/complete commits. In general what happens is that we are few modifying iceberg. But on the other side we really had given a thought to many of these topics, and many decisions had a reason (even if it is that it is not implemented because it would be too much work :)). I try to explain them as better as I can, I can probably do better :)

June 15, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Why doesn't Iceberg checkin other assets (scripts) but does check them out?

by Tim Mackinnon

In many parts of the dev world - every commit should be shippable, meaning atomic - particularly with the use of CI systems (Travis, Gitlab etc) that build on every commit. Of course you can choose to work a different way - but our tools shouldnât force a very common practice to be awkward, should they? I donât understand why many of you guys are so anti such a common thing. In fact our community pioneered this way of working - a build machine where you loaded all your code and ran all your tests before committing. Also, a large number of agile teams will council to work on master (and avoid branches - a technique we also pioneered). In todayâs world where we live in a wider polyglot stack this is one of the reasons why git is so attractive as it should easily embraces that. I get that itâs not quite possible yet - but there are some decent ways to accommodate this (a staging operation, or perhaps a better way to make use of the #addToIndex: which I will experiment with). Anyway, Iâll shut up - and possibly will learn how to implement it myself. Thinking more, I may also be able run with commit and no push , which I will try - as itâs probably the easiest mechanism if the CI will recognise that (I think it will). Thanks for the enlightening conversation, and as always the hard work on iceberg that made this conversation even possible. Tim Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Jun 2018, at 07:11, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > > >> Am 14.06.2018 um 13:12 schrieb Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com>: >> >> Hi Norbert, Tim, >> >> 2018-06-14 11:33 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: >>> >>> >>>> Am 14.06.2018 um 10:30 schrieb Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works>: >>>> >>>> Hi - yes Iâm pleased you check out the entire tree, although currently itâs a bit confusing that you do (fortunately this does give the possibility that we can checkout images and other resources that an Pharo application might rely on - without having to resort to the Seaside FileLibrary trick). >>>> >>>> However my concrete case was that I have a gitlab ci pipeline and next to my src directory in my project I have a config directory that has some Nginx config for my teapot app. If I add a teapot route, I also need to adjust that config and check both changes in together. I canât easily do that now? >>>> >>>> I can modify /config/app.nginx either in another app (intellij) or even in the simple Pharo text editor, and the I can add my new route in my DemoApp>>createRoutes method but how do I check them in together so my pipeline will build atomically? >>>> >>>> Iceberg hasnât written out the changes yet, so IntelliJ canât see them to do a commit, and iceberg ignores the parallel /config directory (that it checked out). So itâs a catch 22. >>>> >>>> This is why I suggested maybe we could specify safer (textual) directories that iceberg might also checkin? OR we have a Stage command in iceberg that does everything that commit does up to the point of actually writing to the repo - then I could jump to IntelliJ and do the final commit there and use its tools to manage non Pharo stuff (until we can build more)? >>>> >>>> Does this make sense? >>>> >>> I donât understand why you are so eager to have everything into one commit. Usually the tension is rather have small commits. What is the problem of having two commits for this? >> >> A single commit allow one to make sure that both the smalltalk code and the external resource are well in sync, and that you may not ending up in a situation were at commit j has data format v1 and smalltalk code for format v2, because it is in commit j+1 that you rewrote the data in format v2. >> > Yes, sure but that is only a problem if you lost control over which commit goes into action. I think the problem is in the deployment then. Putting integrity constraints on commits is IMHO the wrong level deployment granularity > > Norbert > >> I had that issue recently with a Pharo / FPGA project with a Pharo package generating state machines to be integrated in a Verilog FPGA design with C code for the drivers, the softcore in the FPGA, and test programs, and both Pharo and the C/FPGA working out of the same test data... And that whole thing getting regularly out of sync. >> >> IMHO: I'd model a concept of "multi-lingual projet" for that sort of things, where one can list, in Pharo, Monticello packages and external files or directories. Whatever the technology you use (OSProcess, libgit, whatever...) it is easy then to commit all this in a single pass. On a per-package basis, I'd see the package manifest as a suitable place for listing external resources. On a per-project basis, a possible place could be the manifest for the BaselineOf the project. >> >> Thierry >> >>> >>> Norbert >>> >>>> As an aside - Iâd really like to checkin in the play-xxx directories (the .ph files) as there is often useful playground stuff Iâd like to access on my home computer. We canât do that easily at the moment either. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 14 Jun 2018, at 09:12, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Just to complement Esteban's answer: >>>>> >>>>> - Iceberg checks out in disk more than the src directory because you **may** want to edit files from the command line, and after long discussions we did not want to forbid that. >>>>> Actually, just to put everybody in perspective, at first the idea was to not have a working copy in disk at all, but just hit to the blob. >>>>> Imagine is nowadays we are a bit alien, that would have been worst :) >>>>> >>>>> - About checking in files. I'd like to understand what you mean exactly. >>>>> - Do you want to load them into memory? >>>>> This would be the "more consistent" way to do it, following the "the image it its own working copy" metaphore. >>>>> This would allow us to, for example, share an image and transparently share resources with it (without requiring to clone). >>>>> But this would have some impact in memory consumption and add stress to the GC, right? >>>>> >>>>> - Or do you mean to ask like any other Git client and show you the file differences between the working copy and the git index? >>>>> The problem with this approach is that we will have some treatment for pharo code and some different treatment for non-code... >>>>> If I do a change to a class, the change is kept in the image. But if I do a change to a file, that change is not kept in the image! >>>>> >>>>> Also, as Esteban says, having an IDE with support for files would mean that we would need good tools to edit in-memory files (not only text files, right? but also any kind of binary file...) >>>>> >>>>> So far we cover the bare minimum that allows us to *not lose* changes :) >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > yeahâ¦ but is a lot of work and no time just right now. >>>>>> > long term, it would be cool to manage everything from iceberg. >>>>>> > but reality check, is a huge amount of work so it has to come step by step. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fair enough - its pretty cool weâve got this far, and I guess the onus is on the rest of us to learn more about how its done and see if we can contribute more somehow. I really appreciate the love youâve already put into this - it works far better than I think we even realised it could. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:55, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> On 13 Jun 2018, at 22:44, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Esteban - so I don't then understand why iceberg (usefully in my view) checks out more than the src directory, if itâs only focusing on the Pharo blob? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Iâm guessing that by knowing where the src is, you are just committing that part of the tree with libgit? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Perhaps from a pragmatic first step you might consider letting us add a second safe resources directory that you could check in atomically as well (on the understanding all bets are off if it goes wrong?) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> OR could we have a check in mode does all the add/remove operations and writes to disk but then letâs you drop to the command line/other tool to add any other files and do the final commit? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I just feel like you/we are so close to something that works a bit more broadly and embrace the wider world.? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > yeahâ¦ but is a lot of work and no time just right now. >>>>>> > long term, it would be cool to manage everything from iceberg. >>>>>> > but reality check, is a huge amount of work so it has to come step by step. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Tim >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> hi, >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 16:50, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Hi - my second attempt at using Pharo with Git has proven very satisfying (I saw the potential in phase 1, but it was often difficult to understand what was happening and the workflow to use). >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> One thing that has come up a few times for me however - and its something that using git nicely highlights, there are many non-smalltalk assets in my project that donât need to live in the image (like Seaside FileLibraries were trying to do) but do need to be versioned and be part of my project. Common examples are server config files, images and even the playground history files that are useful to pull up when on another computer. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> It seems that while Iceberg does check out a full project, if I change any of the files outside of the src directory (like edit a .txt file using the crude Pharo file editor), those changes donât get committed when I do a checkin? Is this on purpose? It makes the workflow a bit trickier to do an atomic commit of a piece of work - and Iâm not clear whether this is a conscious thing, or an MVP thing (and it will come later). >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> workflow is tricker because you are expecting iceberg to talk with the local working copy and to handle that WC. >>>>>> >>> what happens in fact is different: iceberg treats the image as a working copy itself (it has its own âstageâ area) and what you have in disk is like a separated WC. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> at least, this is the metaphor we are using now, because we cannot realistically handle/control what is in disk since it can be anything. >>>>>> >>> So, instead having this picture in mind: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Image -> Disk -> Git blob (database) >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> you need to have this other: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Image \ >>>>>> >>> Git blob (database) >>>>>> >>> Disk / >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> you will see as soon as you change the mental image, your problems are gone ;) >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> cheers! >>>>>> >>> Esteban >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> ps: diagram before is not exactly as it is since the image actually writes into disk first, but this is an implementation detail we would like to remove in the future, even. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> As mentioned above, I was also thinking it would be nice if I could checkin some of the play-xxxx/*.sh files to essentially keep some of that history synced between environments (or team members?). >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> It strikes me that this is the kind of thing that git integration should bring to us? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I can overlay my copy of IntelliJ on top of my local iceberg directory and then use it for checkins - but then I still have the atomic problem, as its only when I commit that tonel files are written out onto the file system for me to checkin along with any other assets Iâve changed. Does anyone else have a good workflow for this? What do you guys do? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Tim >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Guille Polito >>>>> Research Engineer >>>>> >>>>> Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille >>>>> CRIStAL - UMR 9189 >>>>> French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr >>>>> >>>>> Web: http://guillep.github.io >>>>> Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13 >>> >>

June 15, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Why doesn't Iceberg checkin other assets (scripts) but does check them out?

by Thierry Goubier

2018-06-15 8:19 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > > > On 15 Jun 2018, at 08:11, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > > > Am 14.06.2018 um 13:12 schrieb Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com > >: > > Hi Norbert, Tim, > > 2018-06-14 11:33 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: > >> >> >> Am 14.06.2018 um 10:30 schrieb Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works>: >> >> Hi - yes Iâm pleased you check out the entire tree, although currently >> itâs a bit confusing that you do (fortunately this does give the >> possibility that we can checkout images and other resources that an Pharo >> application might rely on - without having to resort to the Seaside >> FileLibrary trick). >> >> However my concrete case was that I have a gitlab ci pipeline and next to >> my src directory in my project I have a config directory that has some >> Nginx config for my teapot app. If I add a teapot route, I also need to >> adjust that config and check both changes in together. I canât easily do >> that now? >> >> I can modify /config/app.nginx either in another app (intellij) or even >> in the simple Pharo text editor, and the I can add my new route in my >> DemoApp>>createRoutes method but how do I check them in together so my >> pipeline will build atomically? >> >> Iceberg hasnât written out the changes yet, so IntelliJ canât see them to >> do a commit, and iceberg ignores the parallel /config directory (that it >> checked out). So itâs a catch 22. >> >> This is why I suggested maybe we could specify safer (textual) >> directories that iceberg might also checkin? OR we have a Stage command in >> iceberg that does everything that commit does up to the point of actually >> writing to the repo - then I could jump to IntelliJ and do the final commit >> there and use its tools to manage non Pharo stuff (until we can build more)? >> >> Does this make sense? >> >> I donât understand why you are so eager to have everything into one >> commit. Usually the tension is rather have small commits. What is the >> problem of having two commits for this? >> > > A single commit allow one to make sure that both the smalltalk code and > the external resource are well in sync, and that you may not ending up in a > situation were at commit j has data format v1 and smalltalk code for format > v2, because it is in commit j+1 that you rewrote the data in format v2. > > Yes, sure but that is only a problem if you lost control over which commit > goes into action. I think the problem is in the deployment then. Putting > integrity constraints on commits is IMHO the wrong level deployment > granularity > > > +1 > git favours many small commits. > .. and suggests you use rebase, squash and etc... to make sense of those many small commits. Thierry > > Esteban > > > Norbert > > I had that issue recently with a Pharo / FPGA project with a Pharo package > generating state machines to be integrated in a Verilog FPGA design with C > code for the drivers, the softcore in the FPGA, and test programs, and both > Pharo and the C/FPGA working out of the same test data... And that whole > thing getting regularly out of sync. > > IMHO: I'd model a concept of "multi-lingual projet" for that sort of > things, where one can list, in Pharo, Monticello packages and external > files or directories. Whatever the technology you use (OSProcess, libgit, > whatever...) it is easy then to commit all this in a single pass. On a > per-package basis, I'd see the package manifest as a suitable place for > listing external resources. On a per-project basis, a possible place could > be the manifest for the BaselineOf the project. > > Thierry > > >> >> Norbert >> >> As an aside - Iâd really like to checkin in the play-xxx directories (the >> .ph files) as there is often useful playground stuff Iâd like to access on >> my home computer. We canât do that easily at the moment either. >> >> Tim >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 14 Jun 2018, at 09:12, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Just to complement Esteban's answer: >> >> - Iceberg checks out in disk more than the src directory because you >> **may** want to edit files from the command line, and after long >> discussions we did not want to forbid that. >> Actually, just to put everybody in perspective, at first the idea was to >> not have a working copy in disk at all, but just hit to the blob. >> Imagine is nowadays we are a bit alien, that would have been worst :) >> >> - About checking in files. I'd like to understand what you mean exactly. >> - Do you want to load them into memory? >> This would be the "more consistent" way to do it, following the "the >> image it its own working copy" metaphore. >> This would allow us to, for example, share an image and transparently >> share resources with it (without requiring to clone). >> But this would have some impact in memory consumption and add stress >> to the GC, right? >> >> - Or do you mean to ask like any other Git client and show you the file >> differences between the working copy and the git index? >> The problem with this approach is that we will have some treatment >> for pharo code and some different treatment for non-code... >> If I do a change to a class, the change is kept in the image. But if >> I do a change to a file, that change is not kept in the image! >> >> Also, as Esteban says, having an IDE with support for files would mean >> that we would need good tools to edit in-memory files (not only text files, >> right? but also any kind of binary file...) >> >> So far we cover the bare minimum that allows us to *not lose* changes :) >> >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> >>> >>> > yeahâ¦ but is a lot of work and no time just right now. >>> > long term, it would be cool to manage everything from iceberg. >>> > but reality check, is a huge amount of work so it has to come step by >>> step. >>> >>> Fair enough - its pretty cool weâve got this far, and I guess the onus >>> is on the rest of us to learn more about how its done and see if we can >>> contribute more somehow. I really appreciate the love youâve already put >>> into this - it works far better than I think we even realised it could. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> > On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:55, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> On 13 Jun 2018, at 22:44, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Esteban - so I don't then understand why iceberg (usefully in my >>> view) checks out more than the src directory, if itâs only focusing on the >>> Pharo blob? >>> >> >>> >> Iâm guessing that by knowing where the src is, you are just >>> committing that part of the tree with libgit? >>> >> >>> >> Perhaps from a pragmatic first step you might consider letting us add >>> a second safe resources directory that you could check in atomically as >>> well (on the understanding all bets are off if it goes wrong?) >>> >> >>> >> OR could we have a check in mode does all the add/remove operations >>> and writes to disk but then letâs you drop to the command line/other tool >>> to add any other files and do the final commit? >>> >> >>> >> I just feel like you/we are so close to something that works a bit >>> more broadly and embrace the wider world.? >>> > >>> > yeahâ¦ but is a lot of work and no time just right now. >>> > long term, it would be cool to manage everything from iceberg. >>> > but reality check, is a huge amount of work so it has to come step by >>> step. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Tim >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my iPhone >>> >> >>> >>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 16:50, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Hi - my second attempt at using Pharo with Git has proven very >>> satisfying (I saw the potential in phase 1, but it was often difficult to >>> understand what was happening and the workflow to use). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> One thing that has come up a few times for me however - and its >>> something that using git nicely highlights, there are many non-smalltalk >>> assets in my project that donât need to live in the image (like Seaside >>> FileLibraries were trying to do) but do need to be versioned and be part of >>> my project. Common examples are server config files, images and even the >>> playground history files that are useful to pull up when on another >>> computer. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It seems that while Iceberg does check out a full project, if I >>> change any of the files outside of the src directory (like edit a .txt file >>> using the crude Pharo file editor), those changes donât get committed when >>> I do a checkin? Is this on purpose? It makes the workflow a bit trickier to >>> do an atomic commit of a piece of work - and Iâm not clear whether this is >>> a conscious thing, or an MVP thing (and it will come later). >>> >>> >>> >>> workflow is tricker because you are expecting iceberg to talk with >>> the local working copy and to handle that WC. >>> >>> what happens in fact is different: iceberg treats the image as a >>> working copy itself (it has its own âstageâ area) and what you have in disk >>> is like a separated WC. >>> >>> >>> >>> at least, this is the metaphor we are using now, because we cannot >>> realistically handle/control what is in disk since it can be anything. >>> >>> So, instead having this picture in mind: >>> >>> >>> >>> Image -> Disk -> Git blob (database) >>> >>> >>> >>> you need to have this other: >>> >>> >>> >>> Image \ >>> >>> Git blob (database) >>> >>> Disk / >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> you will see as soon as you change the mental image, your problems >>> are gone ;) >>> >>> >>> >>> cheers! >>> >>> Esteban >>> >>> >>> >>> ps: diagram before is not exactly as it is since the image actually >>> writes into disk first, but this is an implementation detail we would like >>> to remove in the future, even. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> As mentioned above, I was also thinking it would be nice if I could >>> checkin some of the play-xxxx/*.sh files to essentially keep some of that >>> history synced between environments (or team members?). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It strikes me that this is the kind of thing that git integration >>> should bring to us? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I can overlay my copy of IntelliJ on top of my local iceberg >>> directory and then use it for checkins - but then I still have the atomic >>> problem, as its only when I commit that tonel files are written out onto >>> the file system for me to checkin along with any other assets Iâve changed. >>> Does anyone else have a good workflow for this? What do you guys do? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Guille Polito >> Research Engineer >> >> Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille >> CRIStAL - UMR 9189 >> French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr >> <http://www.cnrs.fr/>* >> >> *Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io/> >> *Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13 >> >> >> > >

June 15, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Why doesn't Iceberg checkin other assets (scripts) but does check them out?

by Thierry Goubier

2018-06-15 8:11 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: > > > Am 14.06.2018 um 13:12 schrieb Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com > >: > > Hi Norbert, Tim, > > 2018-06-14 11:33 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: > >> >> >> Am 14.06.2018 um 10:30 schrieb Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works>: >> >> Hi - yes Iâm pleased you check out the entire tree, although currently >> itâs a bit confusing that you do (fortunately this does give the >> possibility that we can checkout images and other resources that an Pharo >> application might rely on - without having to resort to the Seaside >> FileLibrary trick). >> >> However my concrete case was that I have a gitlab ci pipeline and next to >> my src directory in my project I have a config directory that has some >> Nginx config for my teapot app. If I add a teapot route, I also need to >> adjust that config and check both changes in together. I canât easily do >> that now? >> >> I can modify /config/app.nginx either in another app (intellij) or even >> in the simple Pharo text editor, and the I can add my new route in my >> DemoApp>>createRoutes method but how do I check them in together so my >> pipeline will build atomically? >> >> Iceberg hasnât written out the changes yet, so IntelliJ canât see them to >> do a commit, and iceberg ignores the parallel /config directory (that it >> checked out). So itâs a catch 22. >> >> This is why I suggested maybe we could specify safer (textual) >> directories that iceberg might also checkin? OR we have a Stage command in >> iceberg that does everything that commit does up to the point of actually >> writing to the repo - then I could jump to IntelliJ and do the final commit >> there and use its tools to manage non Pharo stuff (until we can build more)? >> >> Does this make sense? >> >> I donât understand why you are so eager to have everything into one >> commit. Usually the tension is rather have small commits. What is the >> problem of having two commits for this? >> > > A single commit allow one to make sure that both the smalltalk code and > the external resource are well in sync, and that you may not ending up in a > situation were at commit j has data format v1 and smalltalk code for format > v2, because it is in commit j+1 that you rewrote the data in format v2. > > Yes, sure but that is only a problem if you lost control over which commit > goes into action. I think the problem is in the deployment then. Putting > integrity constraints on commits is IMHO the wrong level deployment > granularity > That may be. But I'm not used to consider co-working on the same branch with my HW engineer as "deployment"... Thierry > > Norbert > > I had that issue recently with a Pharo / FPGA project with a Pharo package > generating state machines to be integrated in a Verilog FPGA design with C > code for the drivers, the softcore in the FPGA, and test programs, and both > Pharo and the C/FPGA working out of the same test data... And that whole > thing getting regularly out of sync. > > IMHO: I'd model a concept of "multi-lingual projet" for that sort of > things, where one can list, in Pharo, Monticello packages and external > files or directories. Whatever the technology you use (OSProcess, libgit, > whatever...) it is easy then to commit all this in a single pass. On a > per-package basis, I'd see the package manifest as a suitable place for > listing external resources. On a per-project basis, a possible place could > be the manifest for the BaselineOf the project. > > Thierry > > >> >> Norbert >> >> As an aside - Iâd really like to checkin in the play-xxx directories (the >> .ph files) as there is often useful playground stuff Iâd like to access on >> my home computer. We canât do that easily at the moment either. >> >> Tim >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 14 Jun 2018, at 09:12, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Just to complement Esteban's answer: >> >> - Iceberg checks out in disk more than the src directory because you >> **may** want to edit files from the command line, and after long >> discussions we did not want to forbid that. >> Actually, just to put everybody in perspective, at first the idea was to >> not have a working copy in disk at all, but just hit to the blob. >> Imagine is nowadays we are a bit alien, that would have been worst :) >> >> - About checking in files. I'd like to understand what you mean exactly. >> - Do you want to load them into memory? >> This would be the "more consistent" way to do it, following the "the >> image it its own working copy" metaphore. >> This would allow us to, for example, share an image and transparently >> share resources with it (without requiring to clone). >> But this would have some impact in memory consumption and add stress >> to the GC, right? >> >> - Or do you mean to ask like any other Git client and show you the file >> differences between the working copy and the git index? >> The problem with this approach is that we will have some treatment >> for pharo code and some different treatment for non-code... >> If I do a change to a class, the change is kept in the image. But if >> I do a change to a file, that change is not kept in the image! >> >> Also, as Esteban says, having an IDE with support for files would mean >> that we would need good tools to edit in-memory files (not only text files, >> right? but also any kind of binary file...) >> >> So far we cover the bare minimum that allows us to *not lose* changes :) >> >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >> >>> >>> > yeahâ¦ but is a lot of work and no time just right now. >>> > long term, it would be cool to manage everything from iceberg. >>> > but reality check, is a huge amount of work so it has to come step by >>> step. >>> >>> Fair enough - its pretty cool weâve got this far, and I guess the onus >>> is on the rest of us to learn more about how its done and see if we can >>> contribute more somehow. I really appreciate the love youâve already put >>> into this - it works far better than I think we even realised it could. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> > On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:55, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> On 13 Jun 2018, at 22:44, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Esteban - so I don't then understand why iceberg (usefully in my >>> view) checks out more than the src directory, if itâs only focusing on the >>> Pharo blob? >>> >> >>> >> Iâm guessing that by knowing where the src is, you are just >>> committing that part of the tree with libgit? >>> >> >>> >> Perhaps from a pragmatic first step you might consider letting us add >>> a second safe resources directory that you could check in atomically as >>> well (on the understanding all bets are off if it goes wrong?) >>> >> >>> >> OR could we have a check in mode does all the add/remove operations >>> and writes to disk but then letâs you drop to the command line/other tool >>> to add any other files and do the final commit? >>> >> >>> >> I just feel like you/we are so close to something that works a bit >>> more broadly and embrace the wider world.? >>> > >>> > yeahâ¦ but is a lot of work and no time just right now. >>> > long term, it would be cool to manage everything from iceberg. >>> > but reality check, is a huge amount of work so it has to come step by >>> step. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Tim >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my iPhone >>> >> >>> >>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 16:50, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Hi - my second attempt at using Pharo with Git has proven very >>> satisfying (I saw the potential in phase 1, but it was often difficult to >>> understand what was happening and the workflow to use). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> One thing that has come up a few times for me however - and its >>> something that using git nicely highlights, there are many non-smalltalk >>> assets in my project that donât need to live in the image (like Seaside >>> FileLibraries were trying to do) but do need to be versioned and be part of >>> my project. Common examples are server config files, images and even the >>> playground history files that are useful to pull up when on another >>> computer. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It seems that while Iceberg does check out a full project, if I >>> change any of the files outside of the src directory (like edit a .txt file >>> using the crude Pharo file editor), those changes donât get committed when >>> I do a checkin? Is this on purpose? It makes the workflow a bit trickier to >>> do an atomic commit of a piece of work - and Iâm not clear whether this is >>> a conscious thing, or an MVP thing (and it will come later). >>> >>> >>> >>> workflow is tricker because you are expecting iceberg to talk with >>> the local working copy and to handle that WC. >>> >>> what happens in fact is different: iceberg treats the image as a >>> working copy itself (it has its own âstageâ area) and what you have in disk >>> is like a separated WC. >>> >>> >>> >>> at least, this is the metaphor we are using now, because we cannot >>> realistically handle/control what is in disk since it can be anything. >>> >>> So, instead having this picture in mind: >>> >>> >>> >>> Image -> Disk -> Git blob (database) >>> >>> >>> >>> you need to have this other: >>> >>> >>> >>> Image \ >>> >>> Git blob (database) >>> >>> Disk / >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> you will see as soon as you change the mental image, your problems >>> are gone ;) >>> >>> >>> >>> cheers! >>> >>> Esteban >>> >>> >>> >>> ps: diagram before is not exactly as it is since the image actually >>> writes into disk first, but this is an implementation detail we would like >>> to remove in the future, even. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> As mentioned above, I was also thinking it would be nice if I could >>> checkin some of the play-xxxx/*.sh files to essentially keep some of that >>> history synced between environments (or team members?). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It strikes me that this is the kind of thing that git integration >>> should bring to us? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I can overlay my copy of IntelliJ on top of my local iceberg >>> directory and then use it for checkins - but then I still have the atomic >>> problem, as its only when I commit that tonel files are written out onto >>> the file system for me to checkin along with any other assets Iâve changed. >>> Does anyone else have a good workflow for this? What do you guys do? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Guille Polito >> Research Engineer >> >> >> Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille >> CRIStAL - UMR 9189 >> French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr >> <http://www.cnrs.fr/>* >> >> *Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io/> >> *Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13 >> >> >> >

June 15, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] How to contribute to Pharo Launcher?

by Christophe Demarey

Hi Tim, > Le 14 juin 2018 Ã 18:48, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> a Ã©crit : > > Is PharoLauncher using git - there is a note saying the StHub repo is about to be moved? > > I ask as I wanted to contribute a simple change that shows the modified date of the images and lets you sort by that (I sometimes forget which was the latest image I was using and have a few old ones kicking around). Until now, I preferred to stay on StHub mainly because Iceberg was not ready to work smoothly with. I did not wanted to get extra-difficulties to work on Pharo Launcher (merge problems, etc). That said, Iceberg has now moved a lot in the right direction and I think we could start to use git for Pharo Launcher development. I will release a ne version of PharoLauncher soon and then, I think I will move PharoLauncher on github and use Cargo to manage it. For your contribution, it is welcomed (in fact, it was planned to be added but you were faster). Feel free to commit it directly to the SH repository, I will then take a look at it. It looks like you already can commit: http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo/PharoLauncher/contributors. Thanks Tim. Regards, Christophe

June 15, 2018

Re: [Pharo-users] Why doesn't Iceberg checkin other assets (scripts) but does check them out?

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 15 Jun 2018, at 08:11, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > > > Am 14.06.2018 um 13:12 schrieb Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goubier@gmail.com>>: > >> Hi Norbert, Tim, >> >> 2018-06-14 11:33 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>: >> >> >>> Am 14.06.2018 um 10:30 schrieb Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works <mailto:tim@testit.works>>: >>> >>> Hi - yes Iâm pleased you check out the entire tree, although currently itâs a bit confusing that you do (fortunately this does give the possibility that we can checkout images and other resources that an Pharo application might rely on - without having to resort to the Seaside FileLibrary trick). >>> >>> However my concrete case was that I have a gitlab ci pipeline and next to my src directory in my project I have a config directory that has some Nginx config for my teapot app. If I add a teapot route, I also need to adjust that config and check both changes in together. I canât easily do that now? >>> >>> I can modify /config/app.nginx either in another app (intellij) or even in the simple Pharo text editor, and the I can add my new route in my DemoApp>>createRoutes method but how do I check them in together so my pipeline will build atomically? >>> >>> Iceberg hasnât written out the changes yet, so IntelliJ canât see them to do a commit, and iceberg ignores the parallel /config directory (that it checked out). So itâs a catch 22. >>> >>> This is why I suggested maybe we could specify safer (textual) directories that iceberg might also checkin? OR we have a Stage command in iceberg that does everything that commit does up to the point of actually writing to the repo - then I could jump to IntelliJ and do the final commit there and use its tools to manage non Pharo stuff (until we can build more)? >>> >>> Does this make sense? >>> >> I donât understand why you are so eager to have everything into one commit. Usually the tension is rather have small commits. What is the problem of having two commits for this? >> >> A single commit allow one to make sure that both the smalltalk code and the external resource are well in sync, and that you may not ending up in a situation were at commit j has data format v1 and smalltalk code for format v2, because it is in commit j+1 that you rewrote the data in format v2. >> > Yes, sure but that is only a problem if you lost control over which commit goes into action. I think the problem is in the deployment then. Putting integrity constraints on commits is IMHO the wrong level deployment granularity +1 git favours many small commits. Esteban > > Norbert > >> I had that issue recently with a Pharo / FPGA project with a Pharo package generating state machines to be integrated in a Verilog FPGA design with C code for the drivers, the softcore in the FPGA, and test programs, and both Pharo and the C/FPGA working out of the same test data... And that whole thing getting regularly out of sync. >> >> IMHO: I'd model a concept of "multi-lingual projet" for that sort of things, where one can list, in Pharo, Monticello packages and external files or directories. Whatever the technology you use (OSProcess, libgit, whatever...) it is easy then to commit all this in a single pass. On a per-package basis, I'd see the package manifest as a suitable place for listing external resources. On a per-project basis, a possible place could be the manifest for the BaselineOf the project. >> >> Thierry >> >> >> Norbert >> >>> As an aside - Iâd really like to checkin in the play-xxx directories (the .ph files) as there is often useful playground stuff Iâd like to access on my home computer. We canât do that easily at the moment either. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 14 Jun 2018, at 09:12, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com <mailto:guillermopolito@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> Just to complement Esteban's answer: >>>> >>>> - Iceberg checks out in disk more than the src directory because you **may** want to edit files from the command line, and after long discussions we did not want to forbid that. >>>> Actually, just to put everybody in perspective, at first the idea was to not have a working copy in disk at all, but just hit to the blob. >>>> Imagine is nowadays we are a bit alien, that would have been worst :) >>>> >>>> - About checking in files. I'd like to understand what you mean exactly. >>>> - Do you want to load them into memory? >>>> This would be the "more consistent" way to do it, following the "the image it its own working copy" metaphore. >>>> This would allow us to, for example, share an image and transparently share resources with it (without requiring to clone). >>>> But this would have some impact in memory consumption and add stress to the GC, right? >>>> >>>> - Or do you mean to ask like any other Git client and show you the file differences between the working copy and the git index? >>>> The problem with this approach is that we will have some treatment for pharo code and some different treatment for non-code... >>>> If I do a change to a class, the change is kept in the image. But if I do a change to a file, that change is not kept in the image! >>>> >>>> Also, as Esteban says, having an IDE with support for files would mean that we would need good tools to edit in-memory files (not only text files, right? but also any kind of binary file...) >>>> >>>> So far we cover the bare minimum that allows us to *not lose* changes :) >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:07 PM Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works <mailto:tim@testit.works>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > yeahâ¦ but is a lot of work and no time just right now. >>>> > long term, it would be cool to manage everything from iceberg. >>>> > but reality check, is a huge amount of work so it has to come step by step. >>>> >>>> Fair enough - its pretty cool weâve got this far, and I guess the onus is on the rest of us to learn more about how its done and see if we can contribute more somehow. I really appreciate the love youâve already put into this - it works far better than I think we even realised it could. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:55, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> On 13 Jun 2018, at 22:44, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works <mailto:tim@testit.works>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Esteban - so I don't then understand why iceberg (usefully in my view) checks out more than the src directory, if itâs only focusing on the Pharo blob? >>>> >> >>>> >> Iâm guessing that by knowing where the src is, you are just committing that part of the tree with libgit? >>>> >> >>>> >> Perhaps from a pragmatic first step you might consider letting us add a second safe resources directory that you could check in atomically as well (on the understanding all bets are off if it goes wrong?) >>>> >> >>>> >> OR could we have a check in mode does all the add/remove operations and writes to disk but then letâs you drop to the command line/other tool to add any other files and do the final commit? >>>> >> >>>> >> I just feel like you/we are so close to something that works a bit more broadly and embrace the wider world.? >>>> > >>>> > yeahâ¦ but is a lot of work and no time just right now. >>>> > long term, it would be cool to manage everything from iceberg. >>>> > but reality check, is a huge amount of work so it has to come step by step. >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> Tim >>>> >> >>>> >> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >> >>>> >>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 21:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> hi, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 16:50, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works <mailto:tim@testit.works>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi - my second attempt at using Pharo with Git has proven very satisfying (I saw the potential in phase 1, but it was often difficult to understand what was happening and the workflow to use). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One thing that has come up a few times for me however - and its something that using git nicely highlights, there are many non-smalltalk assets in my project that donât need to live in the image (like Seaside FileLibraries were trying to do) but do need to be versioned and be part of my project. Common examples are server config files, images and even the playground history files that are useful to pull up when on another computer. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems that while Iceberg does check out a full project, if I change any of the files outside of the src directory (like edit a .txt file using the crude Pharo file editor), those changes donât get committed when I do a checkin? Is this on purpose? It makes the workflow a bit trickier to do an atomic commit of a piece of work - and Iâm not clear whether this is a conscious thing, or an MVP thing (and it will come later). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> workflow is tricker because you are expecting iceberg to talk with the local working copy and to handle that WC. >>>> >>> what happens in fact is different: iceberg treats the image as a working copy itself (it has its own âstageâ area) and what you have in disk is like a separated WC. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> at least, this is the metaphor we are using now, because we cannot realistically handle/control what is in disk since it can be anything. >>>> >>> So, instead having this picture in mind: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Image -> Disk -> Git blob (database) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> you need to have this other: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Image \ >>>> >>> Git blob (database) >>>> >>> Disk / >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> you will see as soon as you change the mental image, your problems are gone ;) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> cheers! >>>> >>> Esteban >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ps: diagram before is not exactly as it is since the image actually writes into disk first, but this is an implementation detail we would like to remove in the future, even. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As mentioned above, I was also thinking it would be nice if I could checkin some of the play-xxxx/*.sh files to essentially keep some of that history synced between environments (or team members?). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It strikes me that this is the kind of thing that git integration should bring to us? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I can overlay my copy of IntelliJ on top of my local iceberg directory and then use it for checkins - but then I still have the atomic problem, as its only when I commit that tonel files are written out onto the file system for me to checkin along with any other assets Iâve changed. Does anyone else have a good workflow for this? What do you guys do? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Guille Polito >>>> Research Engineer >>>> >>>> Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille >>>> CRIStAL - UMR 9189 >>>> French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr <http://www.cnrs.fr/> >>>> >>>> Web: http://guillep.github.io <http://guillep.github.io/> >>>> Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13 >> >>

June 15, 2018