On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Dale Henrichs < dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
Peter,
<wishful thinking>
In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project specification would contain the meta data for a project (like this[2]) instead of a copy of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always out-of-date.
ConfigurationOf should really be phased out -- they've been obsolete for 3-4 years now... BaselineOf is preferred.
Does BaselineOf work with Monticello? I thought it was only for use with git. cheers -ben
If folks are using something like git/github, with proper branching, then a BaselineOf wouldn't be published on the master branch until the unit tests are passing (travis-ci).
</wishful thinking>
Dale
[1] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/tree/gh-pages [2] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/blob/gh-pages/Seaside3.ston
On 2/12/17 4:03 AM, Peter Uhnak wrote:
Hi,
would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead directly from the source?
And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to do it right now?
E.g.
spec project: 'Magritte' with: [ spec className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3; versionString: #stable; repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Ph aro/MetaRepoForPharo50/main/' ].
v. repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Magritte/Magritte3/main/'
pros: * the (e.g. Magritte) developer can freely change platforms * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions (combined with git it could reduce their complexity) * users do not have to think about where is the canonical repo (I've seen project that had copies on SS, STHub, GitHub, and a custom location -_-)
cons: * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions (if the code is compatible, then two repos have to be updated
Any thoughts?
Peter