1.59, 1.59.1, 1.60 ?

It feels like having just one subsection in a section when writing a paper :-)
No big deal however.

Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

On 04/15/2011 07:44 AM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> It feels like having just one subsection in a section when writing a paper :-)
> No big deal however.
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre

I need a little more info to understand what the "No big deal" is...I
haven't written a paper in decades, maybe that's my problem:)

Dale

>> It feels like having just one subsection in a section when writing a paper :-)
>> No big deal however.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alexandre
>
> I need a little more info to understand what the "No big deal" is...I haven't written a paper in decades, maybe that's my problem:)


Consider the following bullet list:
 - this is my first bullet

Without having a second bullet, one may wonder why did we introduce a first bullet.

Since we introduced 1.59.1, one may wonder why we did not introduce 1.59.2 before moving to 1.60.

Alexandre

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

On 04/15/2011 09:31 AM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
Have you read anything at all about versioning:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning

There are conventions and naming schemes ...

Your insistence on creating a new metacello version with each commit has
resulted in very skewed numbers for MetacelloBrowser, but since you
aren't thinking in terms of actually versions MetacelloBrowser I guess I
can understand some of the past discussions better.

1.59 was a release. 1.59.1 was a second release with a minor bugfix to
version 1.59.

1.60 was opened for continued development. If an additional bugfix was
discovered at any time and there was a need to release a 1.59.2 then it
would have been released ... If 1.60 was ready to be used, then the
bugfix could be included in 1.60 along with all of the features/bugfixes
that were added to 1.60 ...

In my mind, MetacelloBrowser is not ready for release 1.0, but we are
sitting at version 1.60 ... what can I say?

Dale

> In my mind, MetacelloBrowser is not ready for release 1.0, but we are sitting at version 1.60 ... what can I say?


For me, Version 1.0 was perfectly usable. I successfully used it for several projects. This is very subjective since all have different needs.
So, let's take 1.60.1 as the current open development. I will put all the improvements of Tobias in it.

Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

On 04/15/2011 09:52 AM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>> In my mind, MetacelloBrowser is not ready for release 1.0, but we are sitting at version 1.60 ... what can I say?
>
>
> For me, Version 1.0 was perfectly usable. I successfully used it for several projects. This is very subjective since all have different needs.
> So, let's take 1.60.1 as the current open development. I will put all the improvements of Tobias in it.
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre

Before we move forward we have to have an understanding with some
guidelines ...

Hopefully the conversation about what we think we are doing here can
start with my previous email ...

Dale

On 04/15/2011 09:52 AM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>> In my mind, MetacelloBrowser is not ready for release 1.0, but we are sitting at version 1.60 ... what can I say?
>
>
> For me, Version 1.0 was perfectly usable. I successfully used it for several projects. This is very subjective since all have different needs.
> So, let's take 1.60.1 as the current open development. I will put all the improvements of Tobias in it.
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre

Version numbering is not subjective ... there needs to be a method to
the madness ... I made the mistake of thinking that you had a method ...
now that you tell me is _subjective_?

Dale

I do not want this version numbering schema distracts our good energy. This is my last email about this today. I deliberately took the decision of doing 1.60.1 to incorporate Tobias' change since they are very important. If it would have been better to put them in 1.60 then I am sorry. I should have asked before, but I wanted to take his fixes into account without delay.

Cheers,
Alexandre


On 15 Apr 2011, at 12:02, Dale Henrichs wrote:

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

On 04/15/2011 10:27 AM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> I do not want this version numbering schema distracts our good
> energy.

Alexandre,

Despite our inability to communicate effectively on the Metacello
version name issue, I agree that we do have good energy and I am very
glad that you are bringing such good energy to the project and I very
much want to continue with this good energy ...

However.

We need to on the same page when it comes to the process that we are
using to develop MetacelloBrowser.

In order to be on the same page, you must be familiar with "Software
versioning":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning

and "Revision control":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control

since both concepts are intertwined in the development process ...

I understand time constraints and all, but I'm afraid that you wasted
your time and my time in your rush to fix Tobias' problem without
following a rational development process.

If you understood "Software versioning" you would have known the
difference between the released version 1.59.1 and the development
version 1.60.

You are free to do what you want when you are working alone, but on a
development team there must be a process that is followed.

I think that when it comes to putting together a tool that is supposed
to be in support of the development process, we owe it to the ultimate
users of the MetacelloBrowser to educate ourselves on the issues and
provide solutions that support rational development processes that allow
teams as well as individuals to get the job done...

Dale

On Apr 15, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Dale Henrichs wrote:

Shift a decimal place and now you're at 0.1.60 - a fine place to be pre-1.0 :)

Pat

> We need to on the same page when it comes to the process that we are using to develop
> MetacelloBrowser.

Since we had a very similar discussion some times ago, I have sticked to the rule of doing a "checkout dev" in the browser. This morning I created a new development version since I believe Tobias' fixes are important "enough" to deserve a change in version.
This is apparently a very big matter. I should have probably better done discussed.

> I understand time constraints and all, but I'm afraid that you wasted your time and my time in your rush to fix Tobias' problem without following a rational development process.

It was rational. I checked at Tobias' code and I judged them good enough to be integrated. They are important.

Where I am loosing my time is dealing with yellow tests. That's a serious matter, to me at least.

> If you understood "Software versioning" you would have known the difference between the released version 1.59.1 and the development version 1.60.

There isn't one definition of "Software versioning", as there isn't for "Software engineering", "music" and "poetry".

> You are free to do what you want when you are working alone, but on a development team there must be a process that is followed.

Yes, and I apology for having deliberately taken the decision to move from 1.60 to 1.60.1. A lot of energy has been spent today, and the tests are still yellow.

Cheers,
Alexandre

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.