Beacon moved to github
Locked
 
|
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 |
|
|
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]>:
|
|
|
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]>:
|
|
|
And put big bold label that project was removed 2017-07-07 17:01 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <[hidden email]>:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Denis Kudriashov
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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]>:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl
2017-07-07 17:11 GMT+02:00 Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
In fact I saw it only in Pharo project :) |
|
|
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 > > > > |
|
|
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 >>> >>> > |
|
|
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." |
|
|
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 >>>> >>>> >> > > |
Re: Beacon moved to github
|
|
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 >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> > > |
|
|
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:
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by gcotelli
You are right and I like this the most. Will change any repo I see 😉 Norbert
|
|
|
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 >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> > > |
|
|
> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |