Hi Dale, 2016-11-08 2:03 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>:
[ snip ... ]
yes I think this is the area where a Metallo Project Browser comes into play. The technology for committing the dirty packages in a a ConfigurationOf has been around for quite awhile, but a tool that unifies the "multi-package" commit for ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf hasn't popped out of the wood work ...
I'm having some issues with the scripting approach of Metacello, for that. Just manipulating a baseline in the Metacello registry (locking it) seems to be like writing a compiler code generation item: write a Metacello script ;) (Metacello>>#lock contains interesting code).
What is a bit annoying, really, is this talk of rewriting everything where some of the pieces (the project browsing you're talkin about, for example) is already there in the image, just not exposed.
Well I am annoyed as well .. I would say that perhaps we are in screaming agreement ... I've said that I don't think it's a lot of work to do the project-centric tool. but a project-centric tool that encompasses both ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf will expose the features that "are already there"
I'm trying to code a little something for that... stay tuned for a screenshot soon.
Cool:)
And here it is! I'm still fighting with the Metacello lock / unlock thing. [image: Images intégrées 1] If Pharo was more really modular in configurations and baselines, then I would see more things into the registry and I could group packages based on that (instead of having to prepare a ad-hoc classification for my my browser). Thierry
Dale
