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would contain the meta data for a project (like this[2]) instead of a copy of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always out-of-date.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.

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/Pharo/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