Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

FunTrunk

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

5 messages Options

Edgar J. De Cleene

FunTrunk

FunTrunk
I actualize Monticello and PackageInfo for let trunk could use “ProcustesEnd”, or Monticello behave like old friend SAR and you could save into squeaksource code, picts, music, initialized Morphs, etc.

What I test.
Load Squeak3.10.2-Trunk-091024.
Hit updates button, save as Squeak3.10.2-trunk.2009-11-16.image.

In Monticello , add MCHttpRepository
    location: 'http://squeaksource.com/Ladrillos'
    user: 'squeak'
    password: 'squeak'

Load Monticello-edc.333, should loads PackageInfo-Base-edc.31.
Then load MorphicPuzzle-edc.2.

Enjoy !

I left the polish of this to younger Squeakers

Edgar.

FunTrunk.2.jpg (33K) Download Attachment

David T. Lewis

Re: FunTrunk

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:54:22AM -0200, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

>
> I actualize Monticello and PackageInfo for let trunk could use
> ?ProcustesEnd?, or Monticello behave like old friend SAR and you could save
> into squeaksource code, picts, music, initialized Morphs, etc.
>
> What I test.
> Load Squeak3.10.2-Trunk-091024.
> Hit updates button, save as Squeak3.10.2-trunk.2009-11-16.image.
>
> In Monticello , add MCHttpRepository
> location: 'http://squeaksource.com/Ladrillos'
> user: 'squeak'
> password: 'squeak'
>
> Load Monticello-edc.333, should loads PackageInfo-Base-edc.31.
> Then load MorphicPuzzle-edc.2.

Thanks Edgar, this is great!

I am not a Monticello expert, but I wonder what others think of
Edgar's extensions for storing non-code things in an MC archive?

I also note that loading MorphicPuzzle on a 64-bit Linux VM exposes
a VM bug (it works fine on a 32-bit VM though):

lewis@linux-6xfc:~/squeak/Squeak3.10-dev>
Segmentation fault

44600172 JPEGReadWriter2>nextImageSuggestedDepth:
44600080 JPEGReadWriter2>nextImage
44599988 >formFromStream:
44599884 BlockClosure>ensure:
44599792 Cursor>showWhile:
44590412 >formFromStream:
44590296 >fromBinaryStream:
43898440 >initialize

Dave

Colin Putney

Re: FunTrunk

On 16-Nov-09, at 6:25 AM, David T. Lewis wrote:

> I am not a Monticello expert, but I wonder what others think of
> Edgar's extensions for storing non-code things in an MC archive?

I haven't looked at Edgar's work in particular, but I have to say I
don't like the general trend of using MC as deployment tool rather
than a development tool. MC was not designed for deployment, but the
fact that individual versions in an MC repository can be referenced by
URL make it really tempting to just skip the whole packaging-for-
deployment step and just deploy straight out of the repository. I
think this weakens MC as a development tool, while also obscuring the
weaknesses in our deployment technologies.

Edgar mentioned SAR, which is the best deployment technology we have
at the moment. What's missing from SAR that requires MC provides? I
think it would be better to add (deployment) functionality to SAR than
to MC.

Colin

David T. Lewis

Re: FunTrunk

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 08:00:16AM -0800, Colin Putney wrote:

>
> On 16-Nov-09, at 6:25 AM, David T. Lewis wrote:
>
> >I am not a Monticello expert, but I wonder what others think of
> >Edgar's extensions for storing non-code things in an MC archive?
>
> I haven't looked at Edgar's work in particular, but I have to say I
> don't like the general trend of using MC as deployment tool rather
> than a development tool. MC was not designed for deployment, but the
> fact that individual versions in an MC repository can be referenced by
> URL make it really tempting to just skip the whole packaging-for-
> deployment step and just deploy straight out of the repository. I
> think this weakens MC as a development tool, while also obscuring the
> weaknesses in our deployment technologies.
>
> Edgar mentioned SAR, which is the best deployment technology we have
> at the moment. What's missing from SAR that requires MC provides? I
> think it would be better to add (deployment) functionality to SAR than
> to MC.

That makes good sense to me.

Dave

Ken Causey-3

Re: FunTrunk

In reply to this post by Colin Putney

On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 08:00 -0800, Colin Putney wrote:

> On 16-Nov-09, at 6:25 AM, David T. Lewis wrote:
>
> > I am not a Monticello expert, but I wonder what others think of
> > Edgar's extensions for storing non-code things in an MC archive?
>
> I haven't looked at Edgar's work in particular, but I have to say I
> don't like the general trend of using MC as deployment tool rather
> than a development tool. MC was not designed for deployment, but the
> fact that individual versions in an MC repository can be referenced by
> URL make it really tempting to just skip the whole packaging-for-
> deployment step and just deploy straight out of the repository. I
> think this weakens MC as a development tool, while also obscuring the
> weaknesses in our deployment technologies.
>
> Edgar mentioned SAR, which is the best deployment technology we have
> at the moment. What's missing from SAR that requires MC provides? I
> think it would be better to add (deployment) functionality to SAR than
> to MC.
>
> Colin

+1

Ken

signature.asc (197 bytes) Download Attachment