Beacon moved to github

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Beacon moved to github

NorbertHartl
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here


I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.

FYI,

Norbert

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Denis Kudriashov
Hi.

I though it was already done :)
One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.

2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here


I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.

FYI,

Norbert


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Pavel Krivanek-3
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl
You probably cannot set it to complete read-only mode, but you can disallow in the project settings "Public write access" and then remove all contributors.

-- Pavel

2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here


I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.

FYI,

Norbert


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Denis Kudriashov
And put big bold label that project was removed

2017-07-07 17:01 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <[hidden email]>:
You probably cannot set it to complete read-only mode, but you can disallow in the project settings "Public write access" and then remove all contributors.

-- Pavel

2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here


I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.

FYI,

Norbert



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

NorbertHartl
In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov

Am 07.07.2017 um 16:53 schrieb Denis Kudriashov <[hidden email]>:

Hi.

I though it was already done :)

:P

One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.

Uh, I've never seen "src". In Voyage and MongoTalk it is "mc" which I don't like. And I'm not a big friend of "src" either. But if it is the common rule I wouldn't object.

Norbert
2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here


I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.

FYI,

Norbert



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

NorbertHartl
In reply to this post by Pavel Krivanek-3
Hmm, public write access isn't checked and there are no contributors and yet I've committed to it in the past.

Norbert

Am 07.07.2017 um 17:01 schrieb Pavel Krivanek <[hidden email]>:

You probably cannot set it to complete read-only mode, but you can disallow in the project settings "Public write access" and then remove all contributors.

-- Pavel

2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here


I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.

FYI,

Norbert



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Pavel Krivanek-3
I guess it is because owner of this project is the Pharo group and you are a member of it. 

-- Pavel

2017-07-07 17:12 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
Hmm, public write access isn't checked and there are no contributors and yet I've committed to it in the past.

Norbert

Am 07.07.2017 um 17:01 schrieb Pavel Krivanek <[hidden email]>:

You probably cannot set it to complete read-only mode, but you can disallow in the project settings "Public write access" and then remove all contributors.

-- Pavel

2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here


I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.

FYI,

Norbert




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Denis Kudriashov
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl

2017-07-07 17:11 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
:P

One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure? Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src" like in other repos.

Uh, I've never seen "src". In Voyage and MongoTalk it is "mc" which I don't like. And I'm not a big friend of "src" either. But if it is the common rule I wouldn't object.

In fact I saw it only in Pharo project :)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Peter Uhnak
In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I though it was already done :)
> One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure?
> Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src"
> like in other repos.

There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.

In pharo-project I see

* repository 3x
* mc 3x
* src 1x (not smalltalk code)

And the rest of the github uses a variety of options

* nothing
        - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages
* repository
        - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;)
        - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing
* mc
        - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg
* src
        - quite common in other programming languages
* packages
        - well, the folder does contain just packages

Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Peter

>
> 2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
>
> > I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from
> > smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
> >
> > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
> >
> > I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
> >
> > FYI,
> >
> > Norbert
> >
> >

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Tim Mackinnon
Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.

I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .

I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.

I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I though it was already done :)
>> One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure?
>> Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src"
>> like in other repos.
>
> There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
>
> In pharo-project I see
>
> * repository 3x
> * mc 3x
> * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
>
> And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
>
> * nothing
>    - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages
> * repository
>    - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;)
>    - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing
> * mc
>    - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg
> * src
>    - quite common in other programming languages
> * packages
>    - well, the folder does contain just packages
>
> Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
>
> Peter
>
>>
>> 2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from
>>> smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
>>>
>>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
>>>
>>> I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
>>>
>>> FYI,
>>>
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Tudor Girba-2
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl
Thanks, Norbert!

Doru


> On Jul 7, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
>
> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
>
> I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
>
> FYI,
>
> Norbert
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Yesterday is a fact.
 Tomorrow is a possibility.
 Today is a challenge."





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

EstebanLM
In reply to this post by Tim Mackinnon

> On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
>
> I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
>
> I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.

yes, I agree… even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think “src”is better convention, now (that’s why pharo is using it :P)

Esteban

>
> I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
>
> Tim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I though it was already done :)
>>> One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure?
>>> Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src"
>>> like in other repos.
>>
>> There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
>>
>> In pharo-project I see
>>
>> * repository 3x
>> * mc 3x
>> * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
>>
>> And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
>>
>> * nothing
>>   - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages
>> * repository
>>   - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;)
>>   - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing
>> * mc
>>   - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg
>> * src
>>   - quite common in other programming languages
>> * packages
>>   - well, the folder does contain just packages
>>
>> Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>>
>>> 2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from
>>>> smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
>>>>
>>>> I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
>>>>
>>>> FYI,
>>>>
>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Stephane Ducasse-3
We should write the convention somewhere too :)

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>> On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
>>
>> I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
>>
>> I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.
>
> yes, I agree… even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think “src”is better convention, now (that’s why pharo is using it :P)
>
> Esteban
>
>>
>> I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> I though it was already done :)
>>>> One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure?
>>>> Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src"
>>>> like in other repos.
>>>
>>> There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
>>>
>>> In pharo-project I see
>>>
>>> * repository 3x
>>> * mc 3x
>>> * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
>>>
>>> And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
>>>
>>> * nothing
>>>   - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages
>>> * repository
>>>   - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;)
>>>   - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing
>>> * mc
>>>   - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg
>>> * src
>>>   - quite common in other programming languages
>>> * packages
>>>   - well, the folder does contain just packages
>>>
>>> Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>>> I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from
>>>>> smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
>>>>>
>>>>> I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI,
>>>>>
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

gcotelli
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
We're using source, because you know in Smalltalk we don't like to invent abbreviations ;)

On Jul 8, 2017 07:18, "Esteban Lorenzano" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
>
> I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
>
> I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.

yes, I agree… even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think “src”is better convention, now (that’s why pharo is using it :P)

Esteban

>
> I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
>
> Tim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I though it was already done :)
>>> One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure?
>>> Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src"
>>> like in other repos.
>>
>> There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
>>
>> In pharo-project I see
>>
>> * repository 3x
>> * mc 3x
>> * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
>>
>> And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
>>
>> * nothing
>>   - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages
>> * repository
>>   - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;)
>>   - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing
>> * mc
>>   - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg
>> * src
>>   - quite common in other programming languages
>> * packages
>>   - well, the folder does contain just packages
>>
>> Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>>
>>> 2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from
>>>> smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
>>>>
>>>> I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
>>>>
>>>> FYI,
>>>>
>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Pierce Ng-3
In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
> One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure?
> Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src"
> like in other repos.

In my PasswordCrypt package, I have src-c for the C sources and Makefile, and
src-st for the Smalltalk code.

Pierce

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

NorbertHartl
In reply to this post by gcotelli
You are right and I like this the most. Will change any repo I see 😉

Norbert

Am 08.07.2017 um 14:54 schrieb Gabriel Cotelli <[hidden email]>:

We're using source, because you know in Smalltalk we don't like to invent abbreviations ;)

On Jul 8, 2017 07:18, "Esteban Lorenzano" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
>
> I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
>
> I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.

yes, I agree… even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think “src”is better convention, now (that’s why pharo is using it :P)

Esteban

>
> I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
>
> Tim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I though it was already done :)
>>> One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure?
>>> Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src"
>>> like in other repos.
>>
>> There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
>>
>> In pharo-project I see
>>
>> * repository 3x
>> * mc 3x
>> * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
>>
>> And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
>>
>> * nothing
>>   - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages
>> * repository
>>   - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;)
>>   - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing
>> * mc
>>   - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg
>> * src
>>   - quite common in other programming languages
>> * packages
>>   - well, the folder does contain just packages
>>
>> Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>>
>>> 2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from
>>>> smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
>>>>
>>>> I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
>>>>
>>>> FYI,
>>>>
>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

Tim Mackinnon
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
Should/could iceberg default to this convention when you create a repo (and you modify it if you want different?).

It would help us get consistency as when you start out you just don't know

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Jul 2017, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
>>
>> I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
>>
>> I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.
>
> yes, I agree… even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think “src”is better convention, now (that’s why pharo is using it :P)
>
> Esteban
>
>>
>> I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>>> On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> I though it was already done :)
>>>> One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure?
>>>> Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src"
>>>> like in other repos.
>>>
>>> There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
>>>
>>> In pharo-project I see
>>>
>>> * repository 3x
>>> * mc 3x
>>> * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
>>>
>>> And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
>>>
>>> * nothing
>>>  - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages
>>> * repository
>>>  - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;)
>>>  - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing
>>> * mc
>>>  - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg
>>> * src
>>>  - quite common in other programming languages
>>> * packages
>>>  - well, the folder does contain just packages
>>>
>>> Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>>> I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from
>>>>> smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
>>>>>
>>>>> I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI,
>>>>>
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Beacon moved to github

NorbertHartl


> Am 09.07.2017 um 12:15 schrieb Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]>:
>
> Should/could iceberg default to this convention when you create a repo (and you modify it if you want different?).
>
Good idea but do we have a convention, yet?

Norbert

> It would help us get consistency as when you start out you just don't know
>
> Tim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 8 Jul 2017, at 11:17, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 8 Jul 2017, at 09:29, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Peter - I just hit this yesterday with your kind help deciphering SmalltalkCI, and I have to confess that "src" was my inclination over repository for the reason you mention in that it is a repository already.
>>>
>>> I noticed other STCi projects have used "packages" .
>>>
>>> I would vote for "src" so other newcomers more easily understand what it is compared to where they came from.
>>
>> yes, I agree… even if at first is me the one who used mc, I think “src”is better convention, now (that’s why pharo is using it :P)
>>
>> Esteban
>>
>>>
>>> I also think it would be helpful for iceberg to default to using that so we get some consistency?
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>>> On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:03, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Denis Kudriashov wrote:
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> I though it was already done :)
>>>>> One notice. Should we all follow standard convention on repo structure?
>>>>> Because source directory in beacon is called "repository" instead "src"
>>>>> like in other repos.
>>>>
>>>> There is no standard convention for Pharo repos on github.
>>>>
>>>> In pharo-project I see
>>>>
>>>> * repository 3x
>>>> * mc 3x
>>>> * src 1x (not smalltalk code)
>>>>
>>>> And the rest of the github uses a variety of options
>>>>
>>>> * nothing
>>>> - imho disorganized and very messy if you have several packages
>>>> * repository
>>>> - I've been using it and recommending it for ~2 years; also used by filetree and metacello repos ;)
>>>> - Argument could be made that git is already a repository so it could be confusing
>>>> * mc
>>>> - because MontiCello/MetaCello I guess? I don't know how much this makes sense in the light of Iceberg
>>>> * src
>>>> - quite common in other programming languages
>>>> * packages
>>>> - well, the folder does contain just packages
>>>>
>>>> Someone could mine github to find precise numbers... but current usage shouldn't be a deciding factor.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-07-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I used the git migration tool of Peter Uhnak to migrate Beacon from
>>>>>> smalltalkhub to github. It is available now here
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-beacon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just need to know how I can switch a smalltalkhub project to read-only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Norbert
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Loading...