Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
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
On 12/02/17 13:03, Peter Uhnak wrote:
would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead directly from the source?
Not really. They are not kept exactly up-to-date in practice, and having one for each Pharo version is also kind of a bad practice. What is missing is some pushing mechanism that makes sure that configurations from the source repo get promoted to the metarepo when they pass some ci (smoke) tests. Stephan
Hi,
would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead directly from the source?
I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that. Usually I have a conf in my repo referencing other repo and not the meta one Then I push in the meta just to config.
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
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
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
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
On 02/12/2017 08:40 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com <mailto: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?
Technically, yes (bleeding edge), but practically no. That doesn't change the fact that ConfigurationOf should be phased out ... There are so many things wrong with the way that ConfigurationOf works: manual editing required on every package commit, editable version data that should be immutable, no good branching model, no project-level version comparison, etc. 5 years ago,I was seriously looking at solving the problems with ConfigurationOf. I happened to be looking at git for inspiration (mainly the branching model), but was not really looking forward to the amount of work that was going to be involved. Fortunately right about that time Otto Behrens introduced FileTree. Being able to leverage a fully featured version control system to manage Smalltalk code in FileTree, meant that instead trying to put effort into fixing ConfigurationOf, I was able to greatly simplify ConfigurationOf with BaselineOf ... Project specification objects would support both ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf projects ... the current model of only supporting ConfigurationOf projects with a MetaRepo means that BaselineOf projects are not really properly supported.... Dale
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
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
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
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/Seas ide3.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
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
I meant, can a Baseline be stored in / operate from a mcz file, without a Configuration? I thought git made Baselines feasible since git takes care of versioning. cheers -ben
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/Seas ide3.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
On 02/13/2017 03:28 AM, Peter Uhnák wrote:
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.
You are correct that the MetaRepo could accomplish this using a ConfigurationOf (the current scheme basically does follow this model), but this is a bit of a hack .. A better solution is to use a "project specification object" --- many other languages use their own flavor of "project specification object" to define the versions. Having project specification objects means that a whole host of project meta data can be included in the object as first class objects without having to hack around with adding methods (by convention) to a ConfigurationOf
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.
I don't agree that this would be needlessly complex ... the implementation I use with tODE leverages gh-pages on github and STON ... having first class objects for project specifications, means that tools can be built to work directly with these objects, instead of loading a ConfigurationOf and hoping that the expected meta data is there ... Dale
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:28:11 +0100, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
we could too. :)
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
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
participants (6)
-
Ben Coman -
Dale Henrichs -
Peter Uhnak -
Peter Uhnák
-
Stephan Eggermont -
stepharong