Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Users

Aconcagua Canonical Repo(s)

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

6 messages Options

Sean P. DeNigris

Aconcagua Canonical Repo(s)

Administrator

It seems that this is now canonical: https://github.com/ba-st/aconcagua

I assume its predecessor [1] was a port from this StHub repo [2]. There are
two other repos on StHub [3] - the first of which has changes after the last
in [1] and the other has changes which may have been/need to be merged. Can
anyone shed further light?

1. https://github.com/mtaborda/aconcagua
2. http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~maxi/Aconcagua
3. http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~HernanWilkinson/Aconcagua
http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~BenoitAstruc/Aconcagua

p.s. IMHO when porting from MCZ to GH, a good practice is to state in the GH
README that it's a port, including the URL of the source and a way to
clarify the last commit (maybe the date could often be sufficient)

-----
Cheers,
Sean
--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Cheers,
Sean

Sean P. DeNigris

Re: Aconcagua Canonical Repo(s)

Administrator

To slightly further complicate matters, canonical does not quite have all
commits from its predecessor.

-----
Cheers,
Sean
--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Cheers,
Sean

CyrilFerlicot

Re: Aconcagua Canonical Repo(s)

In reply to this post by Sean P. DeNigris

What is the relation with Units maintained by Zweindenker?

On Mon 14 Oct 2019 at 19:13, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems that this is now canonical: https://github.com/ba-st/aconcagua

I assume its predecessor [1] was a port from this StHub repo [2]. There are
two other repos on StHub [3] - the first of which has changes after the last
in [1] and the other has changes which may have been/need to be merged. Can
anyone shed further light?

1. https://github.com/mtaborda/aconcagua
2. http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~maxi/Aconcagua
3. http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~HernanWilkinson/Aconcagua
http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~BenoitAstruc/Aconcagua

p.s. IMHO when porting from MCZ to GH, a good practice is to state in the GH
README that it's a port, including the URL of the source and a way to
clarify the last commit (maybe the date could often be sufficient)

-----
Cheers,
Sean
--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Cyril Ferlicot
https://ferlicot.fr

gcotelli

Re: Aconcagua Canonical Repo(s)

In reply to this post by Sean P. DeNigris

I don't know if call it canonical. But certainly it is the version the community is maintaining. It's a fork of the mtaborda repo and converted to tonel format. I don't know how it was migrated from Sthub, but it was before any tool for migrating the history existed.

I think it must contain all the functionality available in Sthub.

Regarding Units package we never made a thorough comparison so I cannot tell the differences. But this package is intended to be usable for things beyond standard units. We're using it for financial measurements besides the physical ones.

Hope it helps in clarifying a bit the situation.

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 14:13 Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems that this is now canonical: https://github.com/ba-st/aconcagua

I assume its predecessor [1] was a port from this StHub repo [2]. There are
two other repos on StHub [3] - the first of which has changes after the last
in [1] and the other has changes which may have been/need to be merged. Can
anyone shed further light?

1. https://github.com/mtaborda/aconcagua
2. http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~maxi/Aconcagua
3. http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~HernanWilkinson/Aconcagua
http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~BenoitAstruc/Aconcagua

p.s. IMHO when porting from MCZ to GH, a good practice is to state in the GH
README that it's a port, including the URL of the source and a way to
clarify the last commit (maybe the date could often be sufficient)

-----
Cheers,
Sean
--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Sean P. DeNigris

Re: Aconcagua Canonical Repo(s)

Administrator

gcotelli wrote
> I don't know if call it canonical. But certainly it is the version the
> community is maintaining.

That works for me. I guess I'll re-fork from there. Hopefully, some of the
other repo owners will speak up as to whether they have useful changes to
pick up.

-----
Cheers,
Sean
--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Cheers,
Sean

Markus Stumptner

Re: Aconcagua Canonical Repo(s)

In reply to this post by CyrilFerlicot

Thanks for pointing out the relationship. I had actually been looking for an implementation of the old OOPSLA paper intermittently over a few months. Never would have occurred to me that this is one. The curse of coy package names...

On 15/10/2019 3:50, Cyril Ferlicot wrote:

What is the relation with Units maintained by Zweindenker?

On Mon 14 Oct 2019 at 19:13, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems that this is now canonical: https://github.com/ba-st/aconcagua

I assume its predecessor [1] was a port from this StHub repo [2]. There are
two other repos on StHub [3] - the first of which has changes after the last
in [1] and the other has changes which may have been/need to be merged. Can
anyone shed further light?

1. https://github.com/mtaborda/aconcagua
2. http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~maxi/Aconcagua
3. http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~HernanWilkinson/Aconcagua
http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~BenoitAstruc/Aconcagua

p.s. IMHO when porting from MCZ to GH, a good practice is to state in the GH
README that it's a port, including the URL of the source and a way to
clarify the last commit (maybe the date could often be sufficient)

-----
Cheers,
Sean
--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

--

Cyril Ferlicot
https://ferlicot.fr