>��I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that.

Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just specify name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it is pulled from a central repository.

So that's why I thought that maybe the MetaRepo could be used in a similar fashion.

> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of project specification objects

That also seems needlessly complex; basically just ConfigurationOf separated to parts. I do not want to restrict the users, but with a central repo the most common use case shouldn't be 10 lines of configuration.

>��Does BaselineOf work with Monticello?

> I thought it was only for use with git.

Monticello or Metacello?

You can download/install projects just fine (and also depend on other baselines from your baselines or configurations)

Metacello new

�� baseline: 'FileDialog';

�� repository: 'github://peteruhnak/file-dialog/repository';

�� load.

Also BaselineOf is just a subclass of ConfigurationOf.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:

Very good to hear ... I have to try to be a bit more patient :)

On 2/12/17 9:37 AM, stepharong wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:36:42 +0100, 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would contain the meta data for a project (like this[2]) instead of a copy of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always out-of-date.

Yes we are working on it.
Now 64bits, FFI, Iceberg, bootstrap got our attention.

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).

I want more than just the tests but this is a start.

</wishful thinking>

We will arrive there. Because I want it too.
Now pavel worked on the bootstrap to avoid to lose all the energy that guille put on it.

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