Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
Locked
Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
 
|
Hi,
would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead directly from the source? And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to do it right now? E.g. spec project: 'Magritte' with: [ spec className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3; versionString: #stable; repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/MetaRepoForPharo50/main/' ]. v. repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Magritte/Magritte3/main/' pros: * the (e.g. Magritte) developer can freely change platforms * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions (combined with git it could reduce their complexity) * users do not have to think about where is the canonical repo (I've seen project that had copies on SS, STHub, GitHub, and a custom location -_-) cons: * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions (if the code is compatible, then two repos have to be updated Any thoughts? Peter |
Re: Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
|
|
On 12/02/17 13:03, Peter Uhnak wrote:
> would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead directly from the source? Not really. They are not kept exactly up-to-date in practice, and having one for each Pharo version is also kind of a bad practice. What is missing is some pushing mechanism that makes sure that configurations from the source repo get promoted to the metarepo when they pass some ci (smoke) tests. Stephan |
Re: Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak
> Hi, > > would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead > directly from the source? I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that. Usually I have a conf in my repo referencing other repo and not the meta one Then I push in the meta just to config. > > And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to do it > right now? > > E.g. > > spec > project: 'Magritte' > with: [ spec > className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3; > versionString: #stable; > repository: > 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/MetaRepoForPharo50/main/' ]. > > v. repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Magritte/Magritte3/main/' > > > pros: > * the (e.g. Magritte) developer can freely change platforms > * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions > (combined with git it could reduce their complexity) > * users do not have to think about where is the canonical repo (I've > seen project that had copies on SS, STHub, GitHub, and a custom location > -_-) > > cons: > * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions (if > the code is compatible, then two repos have to be updated > > Any thoughts? > > Peter > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
Re: Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak
Peter,
<wishful thinking> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project specification would contain the meta data for a project (like this[2]) instead of a copy of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always out-of-date. ConfigurationOf should really be phased out -- they've been obsolete for 3-4 years now... BaselineOf is preferred. If folks are using something like git/github, with proper branching, then a BaselineOf wouldn't be published on the master branch until the unit tests are passing (travis-ci). </wishful thinking> Dale [1] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/tree/gh-pages [2] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/blob/gh-pages/Seaside3.ston On 2/12/17 4:03 AM, Peter Uhnak wrote: > Hi, > > would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead directly from the source? > > And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to do it right now? > > E.g. > > spec > project: 'Magritte' > with: [ spec > className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3; > versionString: #stable; > repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/MetaRepoForPharo50/main/' ]. > > v. repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Magritte/Magritte3/main/' > > > pros: > * the (e.g. Magritte) developer can freely change platforms > * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions (combined with git it could reduce their complexity) > * users do not have to think about where is the canonical repo (I've seen project that had copies on SS, STHub, GitHub, and a custom location -_-) > > cons: > * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions (if the code is compatible, then two repos have to be updated > > Any thoughts? > > Peter > |
|
|
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote: Peter, Does BaselineOf work with Monticello? I thought it was only for use with git. cheers -ben
|
Re: Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
|
|
In reply to this post by Dale Henrichs-3
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:36:42 +0100, Dale Henrichs
<[hidden email]> wrote: > Peter, > > <wishful thinking> > > In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of > project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project > specification would contain the meta data for a project (like this[2]) > instead of a copy of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always out-of-date. Yes we are working on it. Now 64bits, FFI, Iceberg, bootstrap got our attention. > > ConfigurationOf should really be phased out -- they've been obsolete for > 3-4 years now... BaselineOf is preferred. > > If folks are using something like git/github, with proper branching, > then a BaselineOf wouldn't be published on the master branch until the > unit tests are passing (travis-ci). I want more than just the tests but this is a start. > > </wishful thinking> We will arrive there. Because I want it too. Now pavel worked on the bootstrap to avoid to lose all the energy that guille put on it. > > Dale > > [1] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/tree/gh-pages > [2] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/blob/gh-pages/Seaside3.ston > On 2/12/17 4:03 AM, Peter Uhnak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead >> directly from the source? >> >> And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to do >> it right now? >> >> E.g. >> >> spec >> project: 'Magritte' >> with: [ spec >> className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3; >> versionString: #stable; >> repository: >> 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/MetaRepoForPharo50/main/' ]. >> >> v. repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Magritte/Magritte3/main/' >> >> >> pros: >> * the (e.g. Magritte) developer can freely change platforms >> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions >> (combined with git it could reduce their complexity) >> * users do not have to think about where is the canonical repo (I've >> seen project that had copies on SS, STHub, GitHub, and a custom >> location -_-) >> >> cons: >> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions >> (if the code is compatible, then two repos have to be updated >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Peter >> > > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
Re: Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
|
|
Very good to hear ... I have to try to be a bit more patient :)
On 2/12/17 9:37 AM, stepharong wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:36:42 +0100, Dale Henrichs > <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Peter, >> >> <wishful thinking> >> >> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository >> of project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project >> specification would contain the meta data for a project (like >> this[2]) instead of a copy of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always >> out-of-date. > > Yes we are working on it. > Now 64bits, FFI, Iceberg, bootstrap got our attention. >> >> ConfigurationOf should really be phased out -- they've been obsolete >> for 3-4 years now... BaselineOf is preferred. >> >> If folks are using something like git/github, with proper branching, >> then a BaselineOf wouldn't be published on the master branch until >> the unit tests are passing (travis-ci). > > I want more than just the tests but this is a start. >> >> </wishful thinking> > > We will arrive there. Because I want it too. > Now pavel worked on the bootstrap to avoid to lose all the energy that > guille put on it. > >> >> Dale >> >> [1] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/tree/gh-pages >> [2] >> https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/blob/gh-pages/Seaside3.ston >> On 2/12/17 4:03 AM, Peter Uhnak wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead >>> directly from the source? >>> >>> And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to >>> do it right now? >>> >>> E.g. >>> >>> spec >>> project: 'Magritte' >>> with: [ spec >>> className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3; >>> versionString: #stable; >>> repository: >>> 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/MetaRepoForPharo50/main/' ]. >>> >>> v. repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Magritte/Magritte3/main/' >>> >>> >>> pros: >>> * the (e.g. Magritte) developer can freely change platforms >>> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions >>> (combined with git it could reduce their complexity) >>> * users do not have to think about where is the canonical repo (I've >>> seen project that had copies on SS, STHub, GitHub, and a custom >>> location -_-) >>> >>> cons: >>> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions >>> (if the code is compatible, then two repos have to be updated >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> Peter >>> >> >> > > |
Re: Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
|
|
> I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that. Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just specify name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it is pulled from a central repository. So that's why I thought that maybe the MetaRepo could be used in a similar fashion. > In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of project specification objects That also seems needlessly complex; basically just ConfigurationOf separated to parts. I do not want to restrict the users, but with a central repo the most common use case shouldn't be 10 lines of configuration. > I thought it was only for use with git. Monticello or Metacello? You can download/install projects just fine (and also depend on other baselines from your baselines or configurations) Metacello new baseline: 'FileDialog'; repository: 'github://peteruhnak/file-dialog/repository'; load. Also BaselineOf is just a subclass of ConfigurationOf. On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote: Very good to hear ... I have to try to be a bit more patient :) |
|
|
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Peter Uhnák <[hidden email]> wrote:
I meant, can a Baseline be stored in / operate from a mcz file, without a Configuration? I thought git made Baselines feasible since git takes care of versioning. cheers -ben
|
Re: Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
|
|
> I meant, can a Baseline be stored in / operate from a mcz file, without a > Configuration? > I thought git made Baselines feasible since git takes care of versioning. Git takes care of the versioning, so the Baseline is really just a baseline, like it would be in a ConfigurationOf. |
Re: Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
|
|
In reply to this post by Ben Coman
On 02/12/2017 08:40 AM, Ben Coman
wrote:
Technically, yes (bleeding edge), but practically no. That doesn't change the fact that ConfigurationOf should be phased out ... There are so many things wrong with the way that ConfigurationOf works: manual editing required on every package commit, editable version data that should be immutable, no good branching model, no project-level version comparison, etc. 5 years ago,I was seriously looking at solving the problems with ConfigurationOf. I happened to be looking at git for inspiration (mainly the branching model), but was not really looking forward to the amount of work that was going to be involved. Fortunately right about that time Otto Behrens introduced FileTree. Being able to leverage a fully featured version control system to manage Smalltalk code in FileTree, meant that instead trying to put effort into fixing ConfigurationOf, I was able to greatly simplify ConfigurationOf with BaselineOf ... Project specification objects would support both ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf projects ... the current model of only supporting ConfigurationOf projects with a MetaRepo means that BaselineOf projects are not really properly supported.... Dale |
Re: Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak
On 02/13/2017 03:28 AM, Peter Uhnák
wrote:
You are correct that the MetaRepo could accomplish this using a ConfigurationOf (the current scheme basically does follow this model), but this is a bit of a hack .. A better solution is to use a "project specification object" --- many other languages use their own flavor of "project specification object" to define the versions. Having project specification objects means that a whole host of project meta data can be included in the object as first class objects without having to hack around with adding methods (by convention) to a ConfigurationOf I don't agree that this would be needlessly complex ... the implementation I use with tODE leverages gh-pages on github and STON ... having first class objects for project specifications, means that tools can be built to work directly with these objects, instead of loading a ConfigurationOf and hoping that the expected meta data is there ... Dale |
Re: Depending on MetaRepo instead of the target repo
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Uhnak
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:28:11 +0100, Peter Uhnák <[hidden email]> wrote:
we could too. :)
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |