[Pharo-dev] missing updates: 30503 30504

Stéphane Ducasse stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
Mon Oct 21 15:24:14 EDT 2013


>> probably
>> But there is no documentation (except what I wrote in ScriptLoader comment), so I cannot guess. 
> 
> I just don't like that all of a sudden things go wild without an announcement,

what is going wild?

> and 
> by chance I detect it, since I monitor all channels...
> 
>>> We really need to invest a couple of sprints in creating an integration UI,
>>> ben and I started this 2 years ago and it lies dormant since then. The current
>>> way is just too brittle…
>> 
>> And we added more complexity to it. 
> 
> The point is that the integration process is not automated.
> It might be more complex now, but that's how far we can get with INRIA infrastructure.
> So the only thing we can do, since we will never have direct access to the file server,
> and I think this is better that way, is to automate the integration process as much as
> possible.

Yes of course. Now if the loader pop ups a stupid dialog in the middle then you get 
into trouble and previously the solution was based on manual actions. 
Now we can automate it too. So my change is a progress in the right direction. 
And it does not have any impact on other people: only help me, marcus and esteban.

> As I said, we wrote a UI with ben together 2 years ago that does the whole integration 
> without relying one some written specification.

which written specification are you talking about?
Ah you mean a class comment. I can easily remove it if it hurts you :).

> It is fundamentally wrong to rely on written description of processes (not to be confused with documentation). We script, we
> write code, we do not read prose.

Sorry but the integration requires human intervention at least to make sure we do not merge bullshits or checking conflicts just before.
Right now this is like that. Then even a script should be commented and documented. When I read you, you give the impression to 
the rest of the world that we are idiots doing everything manually. But this is not the case. We are doing only 2%: checking conflicts, 
writing the log and closing the bugs. Of course we should continue and make it fully automate. 
Now without my change, you can try to load a package on the server in headless mode with a dirty package and you will see that 
it will not work. 

To me the bottleneck is that the process is not concurrent and that conflicts are not automatically detected once we qualify a fix 
as ready to include. Since another changes can be made in parallel we can have conflict and it means that the automated approach
should recheck all the pending fixes to make sure that none of them got into conflict since the last integration.

> And the scriptloader comment is, and never was complete either, since it excluded the
> interaction on the bug tracker. Issues have to be closed after integrating them, well
> marcus did that job yesterday, but this has to be done automatically in the integration process.

Indeed but instead of getting on your favorite topic, tell me where is the update.list?
So that I can edit it.
I do not understand why it is not in the pharo-update folder

Because any scripted actions should also support full rollback and so far I cannot rollback 
a change even manually because I do not know where this file is and how I can edit it.

This comment does not help.

Pharo 3.0 Update Files
======================

This repository contains a collection of the updates files used for the system-updates of Pharo 3.0.
The files are made available on the [file server](http://files.pharo.org/updates/pharo3.0/).
The [updates30.list](updates30.list) is contains a list of all update files and is generated by a [jenkins job](https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-3.0-Update-Step-3-Release/).

Do not touch these files manually if you do not know what you are doing. 
Read the class comments of the `ScriptLoader` class for a complete description of the Pharo integration process.




Stef





More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list