Gofer issue

>> Gofer new
>>        url: 'http://squeaksource.com/VMMaker';
>>        package: 'VMMaker-oscog.46';
>>        load.
>>
>> and it barks that given version is not found.. which of course not true.
>
> 'VMMaker-oscar.46' is clearly not a package name, use #version: to
> refer to a specific version.
>

>> Actually i surprised that Gofer simply don't reusing the MC package
>> enumeration logic.. or maybe it does.. but obviously doing it wrong :)
>
> Please study the documentation in the class comment of Gofer.
>
> Lukas
>
> --
> Lukas Renggli
> www.lukas-renggli.ch
>
>

> okay, i doing:
>
> Gofer new
>        url: 'http://squeaksource.com/VMMaker';
>        package: 'VMMaker-oscog';
>          resolved
>
>  an Array(a GoferResolvedReference name: 'VMMaker-oscog-Igor.Stasenko.47')
>
> hmm.. that doesn't looks right, isnt? Because as you said,
> following the coventions author's name is 'Igor' and the package is on the
>  branch 'Stasenko'

>> okay, i doing:
>>
>> Gofer new
>>        url: 'http://squeaksource.com/VMMaker';
>>        package: 'VMMaker-oscog';
>>          resolved
>>
>>  an Array(a GoferResolvedReference name: 'VMMaker-oscog-Igor.Stasenko.47')
>>
>> hmm.. that doesn't looks right, isnt? Because as you said,
>> following the coventions author's name is 'Igor' and the package is on the
>>  branch 'Stasenko'
>
> Obviously you must have 'VMMaker-oscog-Igor.Stasenko.47' in your package cache.
>

> On 20 January 2011 22:52, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Following the coventions your name is 'Igor' and the package is on the
>>>> branch 'Stasenko'. Gofer proritizes the main branch.
>>>
>>> how about retrieving the latest version regardless of branch?
>>> Can you provide an example how to tell Gofer to load it?
>>
>> There is no such thing as the latest version in Monticello, unless you
>> download all versions and compare the timestamps.
>>
>
> why you saying like that? If i open this repo in monticello browser, i
> can clearly see what is the latest
> uploaded version. And i sure that MC browser does not downloads all
> versions from repository.

> Hi Igor,
>
> 2011/1/21 Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]>:
>> On 20 January 2011 22:52, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Following the coventions your name is 'Igor' and the package is on the
>>>>> branch 'Stasenko'. Gofer proritizes the main branch.
>>>>
>>>> how about retrieving the latest version regardless of branch?
>>>> Can you provide an example how to tell Gofer to load it?
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as the latest version in Monticello, unless you
>>> download all versions and compare the timestamps.
>>>
>>
>> why you saying like that? If i open this repo in monticello browser, i
>> can clearly see what is the latest
>> uploaded version. And i sure that MC browser does not downloads all
>> versions from repository.
>
> I didn't checked the source code but it seems MC repository inspector
> always sort the package list by version number and when you save a
> package in the Monticello Browser you can edit the version number and
> write a lower number, then you cannot concede the first in the list is
> the latest cronologically. I don't know why the version number is
> editable though.
>

> El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 11:05 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribió:
>
>> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer !
>>
>> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com';
>>       project: 'VMMaker';
>>       install: 'CMakeVMMaker'
>>
>>
>> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version.
>
> That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer
> vs installer.
>
> The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there
> isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for
> example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As
> Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare
> timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not
> intended to be ordered respect to time.
>
> Cheers
>

> On 01/21/2011 08:11 AM, Miguel Cobá wrote:
>>
>> El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 11:05 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribió:
>>
>>> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer !
>>>
>>> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com';
>>>      project: 'VMMaker';
>>>      install: 'CMakeVMMaker'
>>>
>>>
>>> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version.
>>
>> That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer
>> vs installer.
>>
>> The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there
>> isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for
>> example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As
>> Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare
>> timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not
>> intended to be ordered respect to time.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
> It seems to me that that isn't quite the issue ... for Metacello I had to
> change the sort algorithm that Gofer used to more closely match the
> algorithm used by the Monticello GUI when it sorts packages ... to minimize
> the surprise for developers who are used to the Monticello GUI sorting
> order... I also had to change the branch naming scheme that was used by
> Gofer, because it caused problems when package names inadvertently looked
> like a branch to Gofer when it wasn't...Since there has never been an
> enforced naming convention in Monticello, there are a whole lot of
> incompatible naming schemes being used...
>
> BTW, I made these changes so that they only applied to Metacello's use of
> Gofer ...
>

>> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer !
>>
>> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com';
>>     project: 'VMMaker';
>>     install: 'CMakeVMMaker'
>>
>>
>> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version.
>
> That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer
> vs installer.
>
> The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there
> isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for
> example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As
> Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare
> timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not
> intended to be ordered respect to time.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Miguel Cobá
> http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz
> http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
>
>
>
>

> On 01/21/2011 08:11 AM, Miguel Cobá wrote:
>> El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 11:05 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribió:
>>
>>> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer !
>>>
>>> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com';
>>>      project: 'VMMaker';
>>>      install: 'CMakeVMMaker'
>>>
>>>
>>> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version.
>>
>> That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer
>> vs installer.
>>
>> The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there
>> isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for
>> example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As
>> Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare
>> timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not
>> intended to be ordered respect to time.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
> It seems to me that that isn't quite the issue ... for Metacello I had to change the sort algorithm that Gofer used to more closely match the algorithm used by the Monticello GUI when it sorts packages ... to minimize the surprise for developers who are used to the Monticello GUI sorting order... I also had to change the branch naming scheme that was used by Gofer, because it caused problems when package names inadvertently looked like a branch to Gofer when it wasn't...Since there has never been an enforced naming convention in Monticello, there are a whole lot of incompatible naming schemes being used...
>
> BTW, I made these changes so that they only applied to Metacello's use of Gofer ...
>
> Dale
>

> +1
>
> >> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer !
> >>
> >> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com';
> >>     project: 'VMMaker';
> >>     install: 'CMakeVMMaker'
> >>
> >>
> >> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version.
> >
> > That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer
> > vs installer.
> >
> > The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there
> > isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for
> > example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As
> > Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare
> > timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not
> > intended to be ordered respect to time.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --
> > Miguel Cobá
> > http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz
> > http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

> Stef
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
>
>> On 01/21/2011 08:11 AM, Miguel Cobá wrote:
>>> El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 11:05 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribió:
>>>
>>>> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer !
>>>>
>>>> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com';
>>>>      project: 'VMMaker';
>>>>      install: 'CMakeVMMaker'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version.
>>>
>>> That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer
>>> vs installer.
>>>
>>> The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there
>>> isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for
>>> example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As
>>> Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare
>>> timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not
>>> intended to be ordered respect to time.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>
>> It seems to me that that isn't quite the issue ... for Metacello I had to change the sort algorithm that Gofer used to more closely match the algorithm used by the Monticello GUI when it sorts packages ... to minimize the surprise for developers who are used to the Monticello GUI sorting order... I also had to change the branch naming scheme that was used by Gofer, because it caused problems when package names inadvertently looked like a branch to Gofer when it wasn't...Since there has never been an enforced naming convention in Monticello, there are a whole lot of incompatible naming schemes being used...
>>
>> BTW, I made these changes so that they only applied to Metacello's use of Gofer ...
>>
>> Dale
>>
>
>
>

> On 21 January 2011 20:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > So what is the convention because I would like to enforce it.
> > There is no need to have more mess.
> >
>
> i prefer to have
>
> {PackageName}[-{subname}]*-(.*)\.{number}\.mcz
>
> where in  (.*) could be anything and we don't really should care.
>
> And i'm not agree about numbering.
> Number is userful way to tell that my version is more recent than
> yours _without_ checking the date of file or even worse,
> checking the date(s) inside a file.

>
> > Stef
> >
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/21/2011 08:11 AM, Miguel Cobá wrote:
> >>> El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 11:05 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribió:
> >>>
> >>>> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer !
> >>>>
> >>>> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com';
> >>>>      project: 'VMMaker';
> >>>>      install: 'CMakeVMMaker'
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version.
> >>>
> >>> That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer
> >>> vs installer.
> >>>
> >>> The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there
> >>> isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for
> >>> example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As
> >>> Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare
> >>> timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not
> >>> intended to be ordered respect to time.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>
> >> It seems to me that that isn't quite the issue ... for Metacello I had to change the sort algorithm that Gofer used to more closely match the algorithm used by the Monticello GUI when it sorts packages ... to minimize the surprise for developers who are used to the Monticello GUI sorting order... I also had to change the branch naming scheme that was used by Gofer, because it caused problems when package names inadvertently looked like a branch to Gofer when it wasn't...Since there has never been an enforced naming convention in Monticello, there are a whole lot of incompatible naming schemes being used...
> >>
> >> BTW, I made these changes so that they only applied to Metacello's use of Gofer ...
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

> Yes we understand, but that only applies to centralized SCM like
> subversion.
> In a distributed SCM like git and monticello the number means nothing.
> e.g. there could be two branches yours and mine, and both have 345
> commits in it. Supposing that we don't skip any number and did nothing
> weird, there would be exactly 690 versions and bot
> Package-MiguelCoba.345.mcz and Package-IgorStasenko.345.mcz. If you did
> those 345 versions in one day and I did mines on a year, one for day,
> the only way to know which one is more "recent" is with timestamps. But
> the numbers means nothing in distributed SCMs.
>
> Cheers

> This thing of the initial is really upsetting.
>
> I know that is old history and that even tools were made (monticello)
> relying on them (even without specifying an accepted format, creating
> more confusion) but I think that enough is enough.
>
> So, monticello hasn't a format for the filenames of the packages, at
> least one that avoid problems due to initials, fullnames or whatever
> string that the user happen to write in their image.
>
> For Igor, the problem is that he writes his name as Igor.Stasenko. That
> chokes monticello and gofer and whatnot.

>
> Why don't we use the git way and let the user write two things, an email
> and a free user name. And then sign the monticello packages with email
> and in a meta-info inside the mcz (or in the commit info/message) use
> the full name?
>
> What do you think? What it would break with a change like this?
>
> Cheers
>

> El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 13:55 -0600, Miguel Cobá escribió:
>
>> Yes we understand, but that only applies to centralized SCM like
>> subversion.
>> In a distributed SCM like git and monticello the number means nothing.
>> e.g. there could be two branches yours and mine, and both have 345
>> commits in it. Supposing that we don't skip any number and did nothing
>> weird, there would be exactly 690 versions and bot
>> Package-MiguelCoba.345.mcz and Package-IgorStasenko.345.mcz. If you did
>> those 345 versions in one day and I did mines on a year, one for day,
>> the only way to know which one is more "recent" is with timestamps. But
>> the numbers means nothing in distributed SCMs.
>>
>> Cheers
>
> See, Git don't even use a number, it uses the SHA1 of the bytes that
> were changed in the repository between commits. That is the most
> unnumbered-sequentially way to mark a commit. For all practical purposes
> it is a random number.
>

> El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 11:05 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribió:
>
>> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer !
>>
>> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com';
>>       project: 'VMMaker';
>>       install: 'CMakeVMMaker'
>>
>>
>> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version.
>
> That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer
> vs installer.
>
> The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there
> isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for
> example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As
> Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare
> timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not
> intended to be ordered respect to time.
>
> Cheers
>