Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

11 messages Options

tesonep@gmail.com

New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

New Iceberg Version 1.2.1 [https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/releases/tag/v1.2.0 + https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/releases/tag/v1.2.1]

Thanks to all brave users, issue reporters, and contributors :).

This version includes the implementation of projects.

Projects are a way of defining basic metadata of the repository.

Now, this metadata just includes the source directory.

This means that people do not need anymore to provide ALL THE TIME the source directory.

Instead, every repository includes a project file that provides it.

Iceberg will guide people to create the given file. This file is managed by Iceberg and people should not touch it from the outside or accept the consequences :).

This version is integrated in the latest Pharo 7 images.

#New Features

- #866 Introduce first version of Projects

#Infrastructure

- #870 Improving tests of Metacello Integration

- #903 Split basic tests from metacello tests in CI

- #914 Sync Wiki with documentation directory automatically

- #934 Manually check metacello integration dialogs

- #935 Try to refrite the metacello integration tests.

- #940 Installation in new Pharo should also bootstrap pharo repository

#Enhancements

- #675 The History of a Method in Calypso should show a progress bar.

- #788 Show progress during network operations (fetch,push, ...) Libgit.

- #875 Tonel plugin does not delete .filetree Migration

- #897 Update to OSSubprocess 1.0.1

- #911 Repair Checkout branch should appear in "no project found"

- #933 Fix Edit repository dialog

- #939 IceInteractiveErrorVisitor duplicates IceTipInteractiveErrorVisitor

- #944 Extract pharo repository bootstrap code into iceberg

#Bug Fixes

- #828 Convert sources to tonel raises an Exception

- #839 Infinite loop in IceGitLocalRepositoryType if the path is wrong

- #849 VM crash while saving credentials Credential Manager

- #851 .properties file is not create if project is imported and not cloned.

- #869 Error msg after an http timeout is unreadable

- #873 Error with credential provider Credential Manager

- #874 The integration with Metacello does not work when there is a src directory, but not project file.

- #880 Putting "." in project src field gives dnu

- #884 Edit Project Dialog tries to select 'src' folder as default, but does not handle if it does not exists

- #886 Edit Project Dialog does not allow to select the root of the repository as source directory

- #888 Could not locate repository does not have subdirectory anymore.

- #889 Loading an unborn project through metacello does not work

- #894 GitHubAPI fails when the API responds with a 204 No Content

- #901 I get a DNU projectName....

- #902 Edit project metadata does not detect default format

- #918 Cloning pharo from a sync'ed repository does not correctly show dirty packages

- #928 Pull request cancel

- #930 Changed ivar/slot name in stateful trait not recognized as a change

- #931 DNU when trying to unload an Iceberg pkg where underlying Pharo pkg has been removed

- #932 Pharo repository forgets packages

- #938 Do not catch assertion failures

- #941 Iceberg pre-installed repository has wrong repair action

- #946 Fixing Metacello Integration Tests

- #948 Cloning from github creates an invalid remote

- #950 Iceberg v1.2.0 breaks projects Metacello Integration bug

- #951 New project window should be coherent on the vocabulary UI enhancement

- #953 Make remote request anonymous enhancement

- #952 Cannot Clone Pharo Repository Pharo plugin bug

- #955 Repair actions for repositories with fetch required are wrong UI bug

Pablo Tesone.
[hidden email]

NorbertHartl

Re: New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

Great, thanks!

I used 1.2.0 a few days ago and I had some problems:

- some repos like voyage had a .properties file in the repo with content „{}“. This made the repo unusable. The only thing noticed is that in the repo view in iceberg the packages were named Voyage-Core.package instead of Voyage-Core

- I had a problem that I cherry picked changes in my project and commited but then all other changes were gone, too. I need to revert and then reapply the changes with epicea in order to have it in iceberg. It can be it was influenced by the above problem but I need to check again which I will.

Norbert

Am 07.08.2018 um 12:05 schrieb [hidden email]:

New Iceberg Version 1.2.1 [https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/releases/tag/v1.2.0 + https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/releases/tag/v1.2.1]
Thanks to all brave users, issue reporters, and contributors :).

This version includes the implementation of projects.
Projects are a way of defining basic metadata of the repository.
Now, this metadata just includes the source directory.

This means that people do not need anymore to provide ALL THE TIME the source directory.
Instead, every repository includes a project file that provides it.
Iceberg will guide people to create the given file. This file is managed by Iceberg and people should not touch it from the outside or accept the consequences :).

This version is integrated in the latest Pharo 7 images.

#New Features

- #866 Introduce first version of Projects

#Infrastructure

- #870 Improving tests of Metacello Integration
- #903 Split basic tests from metacello tests in CI
- #914 Sync Wiki with documentation directory automatically
- #934 Manually check metacello integration dialogs
- #935 Try to refrite the metacello integration tests.
- #940 Installation in new Pharo should also bootstrap pharo repository

#Enhancements

- #675 The History of a Method in Calypso should show a progress bar.
- #788 Show progress during network operations (fetch,push, ...) Libgit.
- #875 Tonel plugin does not delete .filetree Migration
- #897 Update to OSSubprocess 1.0.1
- #911 Repair Checkout branch should appear in "no project found"
- #933 Fix Edit repository dialog
- #939 IceInteractiveErrorVisitor duplicates IceTipInteractiveErrorVisitor
- #944 Extract pharo repository bootstrap code into iceberg

#Bug Fixes

- #828 Convert sources to tonel raises an Exception
- #839 Infinite loop in IceGitLocalRepositoryType if the path is wrong
- #849 VM crash while saving credentials Credential Manager
- #851 .properties file is not create if project is imported and not cloned.
- #869 Error msg after an http timeout is unreadable
- #873 Error with credential provider Credential Manager
- #874 The integration with Metacello does not work when there is a src directory, but not project file.
- #880 Putting "." in project src field gives dnu
- #884 Edit Project Dialog tries to select 'src' folder as default, but does not handle if it does not exists
- #886 Edit Project Dialog does not allow to select the root of the repository as source directory
- #888 Could not locate repository does not have subdirectory anymore.
- #889 Loading an unborn project through metacello does not work
- #894 GitHubAPI fails when the API responds with a 204 No Content
- #901 I get a DNU projectName....
- #902 Edit project metadata does not detect default format
- #918 Cloning pharo from a sync'ed repository does not correctly show dirty packages
- #928 Pull request cancel
- #930 Changed ivar/slot name in stateful trait not recognized as a change
- #931 DNU when trying to unload an Iceberg pkg where underlying Pharo pkg has been removed
- #932 Pharo repository forgets packages
- #938 Do not catch assertion failures
- #941 Iceberg pre-installed repository has wrong repair action
- #946 Fixing Metacello Integration Tests
- #948 Cloning from github creates an invalid remote
- #950 Iceberg v1.2.0 breaks projects Metacello Integration bug
- #951 New project window should be coherent on the vocabulary UI enhancement
- #953 Make remote request anonymous enhancement
- #952 Cannot Clone Pharo Repository Pharo plugin bug
- #955 Repair actions for repositories with fetch required are wrong UI bug

--
Pablo Tesone.
[hidden email]

NorbertHartl

Re: New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

In reply to this post by tesonep@gmail.com

Forgot one thing.

I find the new project feature quite intrusive. It will add those file to all repos unasked. So I have a lot of dirty projects I have no write access to. How is this supposed to work. Isn’t it better to assume defaults and add an option to add project files?

Norbert

Am 07.08.2018 um 12:05 schrieb [hidden email]:

New Iceberg Version 1.2.1 [https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/releases/tag/v1.2.0 + https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/releases/tag/v1.2.1]
Thanks to all brave users, issue reporters, and contributors :).

This version includes the implementation of projects.
Projects are a way of defining basic metadata of the repository.
Now, this metadata just includes the source directory.

This means that people do not need anymore to provide ALL THE TIME the source directory.
Instead, every repository includes a project file that provides it.
Iceberg will guide people to create the given file. This file is managed by Iceberg and people should not touch it from the outside or accept the consequences :).

This version is integrated in the latest Pharo 7 images.

#New Features

- #866 Introduce first version of Projects

#Infrastructure

- #870 Improving tests of Metacello Integration
- #903 Split basic tests from metacello tests in CI
- #914 Sync Wiki with documentation directory automatically
- #934 Manually check metacello integration dialogs
- #935 Try to refrite the metacello integration tests.
- #940 Installation in new Pharo should also bootstrap pharo repository

#Enhancements

- #675 The History of a Method in Calypso should show a progress bar.
- #788 Show progress during network operations (fetch,push, ...) Libgit.
- #875 Tonel plugin does not delete .filetree Migration
- #897 Update to OSSubprocess 1.0.1
- #911 Repair Checkout branch should appear in "no project found"
- #933 Fix Edit repository dialog
- #939 IceInteractiveErrorVisitor duplicates IceTipInteractiveErrorVisitor
- #944 Extract pharo repository bootstrap code into iceberg

#Bug Fixes

- #828 Convert sources to tonel raises an Exception
- #839 Infinite loop in IceGitLocalRepositoryType if the path is wrong
- #849 VM crash while saving credentials Credential Manager
- #851 .properties file is not create if project is imported and not cloned.
- #869 Error msg after an http timeout is unreadable
- #873 Error with credential provider Credential Manager
- #874 The integration with Metacello does not work when there is a src directory, but not project file.
- #880 Putting "." in project src field gives dnu
- #884 Edit Project Dialog tries to select 'src' folder as default, but does not handle if it does not exists
- #886 Edit Project Dialog does not allow to select the root of the repository as source directory
- #888 Could not locate repository does not have subdirectory anymore.
- #889 Loading an unborn project through metacello does not work
- #894 GitHubAPI fails when the API responds with a 204 No Content
- #901 I get a DNU projectName....
- #902 Edit project metadata does not detect default format
- #918 Cloning pharo from a sync'ed repository does not correctly show dirty packages
- #928 Pull request cancel
- #930 Changed ivar/slot name in stateful trait not recognized as a change
- #931 DNU when trying to unload an Iceberg pkg where underlying Pharo pkg has been removed
- #932 Pharo repository forgets packages
- #938 Do not catch assertion failures
- #941 Iceberg pre-installed repository has wrong repair action
- #946 Fixing Metacello Integration Tests
- #948 Cloning from github creates an invalid remote
- #950 Iceberg v1.2.0 breaks projects Metacello Integration bug
- #951 New project window should be coherent on the vocabulary UI enhancement
- #953 Make remote request anonymous enhancement
- #952 Cannot Clone Pharo Repository Pharo plugin bug
- #955 Repair actions for repositories with fetch required are wrong UI bug

--
Pablo Tesone.
[hidden email]

Guillermo Polito

Re: New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

Hi,

I'll write down some of the reasons of the project's design, like that I can afterwards copy paste it in the wiki :).

First, this design did not came up from an egg. We worked on it for about two months. And it is thought to be backwards compatible and manage lots of metacello particularities. It may have things that are perfectible, sure, so let's discuss it.

One of the main problems we saw in metacello, and that Iceberg inherited, was the "source subdirectory" thing. This source directory had to be specified in the CLIENT, meaning that every time we clone a repository we should know by heart the directory chose by its developer. Moreover, we lack a standard way to do it, so everybody does as he feels (root directory, src, source, repository, mc....).

This has some bad consequences:

- once a repository is referenced by some other project, it is more complicated to change its source directory. Imagine that tomorrow we set as standard that all git repos should have the code in src. Then voyage should change. And all its clients too.

- Making a typo in the code subdirectory means sometimes super ugly errors from metacello that are difficult to debug and understand (e.g., "Cannot resolve BaselineOfMetacello WTF")

Moreover, there was another problem that people started stumbling on: the fact that iceberg got confused sometimes thinking that an empty project was in filetree (to keep backwards compatibility with projects without a .properties).

So we decided that for this release we wanted to revert a bit that situation. Think object: let's put the meta-data used to interpret a project's structure inside the project itself.

The idea is that:

- each project should contain both a .project and a .properties file. The first can contain arbitrary project meta-data (such as the source directory). The second contains the cypress properties, which are needed to correctly interpret the code inside the source directory.

- a project without a .project file is an old project and cannot be interpreted, because we don't know the source directory

- a project without a .properties file is an old project and is by default transformed in a project with a #filetree properties file

- an old project cloned from iceberg detects the missing .project file and gives the user the opportunity to declare it (and then commit it explicitly)

- an old project cloned and loaded from a Metacello expression defining a source directory will honnor the source directory defined in the Metacello expression (for backwards compatibility, and we have ~500 tests about this).

# About defaults values / forcing the user to define a project

First, notice that even when the repositories you load are just marked as "dirty".

This is because in memory we add a project to your repository.

But you're not forced to commit it.

Actually, you can still load packages and baselines from that repository without committing.

This is in line with Iceberg's "explicitness". We try to not do any destructive operation without asking the user first (that's why we have several preview windows for pushing, pulling, checkout, merge..., and why contrastingly with monticello we show the committed changes on the commit window...). So, instead of transparently "adding the file" we have decided to modify the project in memory and let the user the responsibility to commit that file.

If there's a drawback, is that the repository is marked as dirty. Which is a bit noisy, yes, but still I think it's not so bad compared with the previous drawbacks.

To solve this, we could have some default values, yes, and only mark it as dirty if the project does not follow the default value.

This could work, but right now all projects use different names for their source directories.

So the question is, what would be a good default? I'd like to use 'src' since this is short, well known and less alien (all these in the sense that we do not lose anything and we have a lot to gain by using it).

However, not much repositories use 'src' so it will still produce a lot of "noise"...

But still! Committing that file is a one-time operation. Once people fix their repositories adding the project meta-data, you will not see them dirty anymore. So we can see this as a transition noise too...

Of course, new ideas are welcome. I'll let Pablo and Esteban add their points of view on this too.

Guille

tesonep@gmail.com

Re: New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

Only adding a small detail, the Metacello expression is used to generate the project that is offered.

Also I see it as the Detached head status for projects that are loaded using Metacello. Maybe we should display the dirtiness in other way, but I think that is not a problem.

It is normal that a project is marked dirty while used.

Cheers

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 4:01 PM Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I'll write down some of the reasons of the project's design, like that I can afterwards copy paste it in the wiki :).

First, this design did not came up from an egg. We worked on it for about two months. And it is thought to be backwards compatible and manage lots of metacello particularities. It may have things that are perfectible, sure, so let's discuss it.

One of the main problems we saw in metacello, and that Iceberg inherited, was the "source subdirectory" thing. This source directory had to be specified in the CLIENT, meaning that every time we clone a repository we should know by heart the directory chose by its developer. Moreover, we lack a standard way to do it, so everybody does as he feels (root directory, src, source, repository, mc....).

This has some bad consequences:
- once a repository is referenced by some other project, it is more complicated to change its source directory. Imagine that tomorrow we set as standard that all git repos should have the code in src. Then voyage should change. And all its clients too.
- Making a typo in the code subdirectory means sometimes super ugly errors from metacello that are difficult to debug and understand (e.g., "Cannot resolve BaselineOfMetacello WTF")

Moreover, there was another problem that people started stumbling on: the fact that iceberg got confused sometimes thinking that an empty project was in filetree (to keep backwards compatibility with projects without a .properties).

So we decided that for this release we wanted to revert a bit that situation. Think object: let's put the meta-data used to interpret a project's structure inside the project itself.
The idea is that:

- each project should contain both a .project and a .properties file. The first can contain arbitrary project meta-data (such as the source directory). The second contains the cypress properties, which are needed to correctly interpret the code inside the source directory.
- a project without a .project file is an old project and cannot be interpreted, because we don't know the source directory
- a project without a .properties file is an old project and is by default transformed in a project with a #filetree properties file
- an old project cloned from iceberg detects the missing .project file and gives the user the opportunity to declare it (and then commit it explicitly)
- an old project cloned and loaded from a Metacello expression defining a source directory will honnor the source directory defined in the Metacello expression (for backwards compatibility, and we have ~500 tests about this).

# About defaults values / forcing the user to define a project

First, notice that even when the repositories you load are just marked as "dirty".
This is because in memory we add a project to your repository.
But you're not forced to commit it.
Actually, you can still load packages and baselines from that repository without committing.

This is in line with Iceberg's "explicitness". We try to not do any destructive operation without asking the user first (that's why we have several preview windows for pushing, pulling, checkout, merge..., and why contrastingly with monticello we show the committed changes on the commit window...). So, instead of transparently "adding the file" we have decided to modify the project in memory and let the user the responsibility to commit that file.

If there's a drawback, is that the repository is marked as dirty. Which is a bit noisy, yes, but still I think it's not so bad compared with the previous drawbacks.
To solve this, we could have some default values, yes, and only mark it as dirty if the project does not follow the default value.
This could work, but right now all projects use different names for their source directories.
So the question is, what would be a good default? I'd like to use 'src' since this is short, well known and less alien (all these in the sense that we do not lose anything and we have a lot to gain by using it).
However, not much repositories use 'src' so it will still produce a lot of "noise"...

But still! Committing that file is a one-time operation. Once people fix their repositories adding the project meta-data, you will not see them dirty anymore. So we can see this as a transition noise too...

Of course, new ideas are welcome. I'll let Pablo and Esteban add their points of view on this too.
Guille

Pablo Tesone.
[hidden email]

NorbertHartl

Re: New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

In reply to this post by Guillermo Polito

> Am 07.08.2018 um 16:00 schrieb Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'll write down some of the reasons of the project's design, like that I can afterwards copy paste it in the wiki :).
>
> First, this design did not came up from an egg. We worked on it for about two months. And it is thought to be backwards compatible and manage lots of metacello particularities. It may have things that are perfectible, sure, so let's discuss it.
>
> One of the main problems we saw in metacello, and that Iceberg inherited, was the "source subdirectory" thing. This source directory had to be specified in the CLIENT, meaning that every time we clone a repository we should know by heart the directory chose by its developer. Moreover, we lack a standard way to do it, so everybody does as he feels (root directory, src, source, repository, mc....).
>
> This has some bad consequences:
> - once a repository is referenced by some other project, it is more complicated to change its source directory. Imagine that tomorrow we set as standard that all git repos should have the code in src. Then voyage should change. And all its clients too.
> - Making a typo in the code subdirectory means sometimes super ugly errors from metacello that are difficult to debug and understand (e.g., "Cannot resolve BaselineOfMetacello WTF")
>
> Moreover, there was another problem that people started stumbling on: the fact that iceberg got confused sometimes thinking that an empty project was in filetree (to keep backwards compatibility with projects without a .properties).
>
> So we decided that for this release we wanted to revert a bit that situation. Think object: let's put the meta-data used to interpret a project's structure inside the project itself.
> The idea is that:
>
> - each project should contain both a .project and a .properties file. The first can contain arbitrary project meta-data (such as the source directory). The second contains the cypress properties, which are needed to correctly interpret the code inside the source directory.
> - a project without a .project file is an old project and cannot be interpreted, because we don't know the source directory
> - a project without a .properties file is an old project and is by default transformed in a project with a #filetree properties file
> - an old project cloned from iceberg detects the missing .project file and gives the user the opportunity to declare it (and then commit it explicitly)
> - an old project cloned and loaded from a Metacello expression defining a source directory will honnor the source directory defined in the Metacello expression (for backwards compatibility, and we have ~500 tests about this).
>
> # About defaults values / forcing the user to define a project
>
> First, notice that even when the repositories you load are just marked as "dirty".
> This is because in memory we add a project to your repository.
> But you're not forced to commit it.
> Actually, you can still load packages and baselines from that repository without committing.
>
> This is in line with Iceberg's "explicitness". We try to not do any destructive operation without asking the user first (that's why we have several preview windows for pushing, pulling, checkout, merge..., and why contrastingly with monticello we show the committed changes on the commit window...). So, instead of transparently "adding the file" we have decided to modify the project in memory and let the user the responsibility to commit that file.
>
> If there's a drawback, is that the repository is marked as dirty. Which is a bit noisy, yes, but still I think it's not so bad compared with the previous drawbacks.
> To solve this, we could have some default values, yes, and only mark it as dirty if the project does not follow the default value.
> This could work, but right now all projects use different names for their source directories.
> So the question is, what would be a good default? I'd like to use 'src' since this is short, well known and less alien (all these in the sense that we do not lose anything and we have a lot to gain by using it).
> However, not much repositories use 'src' so it will still produce a lot of "noise"...
>
> But still! Committing that file is a one-time operation. Once people fix their repositories adding the project meta-data, you will not see them dirty anymore. So we can see this as a transition noise too...
>
> Of course, new ideas are welcome. I'll let Pablo and Esteban add their points of view on this too.
>

I think I can see what is the rationale behind it but I’m not sure this can be the way to go:

- I don’t think there can be a „standard way“ of defining source directory. And I don’t think that a tool should enforce this however. I keep frontend and backend code in some repositories together so the source is in my case in backend/source. What does it mean for users not using the „standard“ name?
- I don’t see why there needs to be a 1:1 relationship between a repository and working copy in pharo. It is like this at the moment already but the .project file manifests this. So it should not be supported to have more source dirs in one git repo? It might be not a good idea that the client has to write the source dir but it opens the possibility that there can be more than one.
- My mode of working is to have an eye on dirty repositories because that shows what the impact of your work is. If I have a lot of dirty repositories in my repository list it does not feel good and I don’t want that. Especially for projects I don’t have write access to. How can I change this? I’m not sure that assuming everyone will add these files is a likely one.

Norbert

Damien Pollet

Re: New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

First of all, quick stupid question: I'm currently loading my code with gitlocal://./src as the repository URL (my workflow starts in a terminal rather than in a Pharo image)

Should I just remove the /src part, now that my repo has the project metadata?

Also, are more features planned for the .project file? E.g. what about storing a default selection for Calypso and the Test Runner in there?

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 10:28, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:

- I don’t think there can be a „standard way“ of defining source directory. And I don’t think that a tool should enforce this however. I keep frontend and backend code in some repositories together so the source is in my case in backend/source. What does it mean for users not using the „standard“ name?

Sure there can. Look at any ruby or maven project, they all have strong conventions for organizing projects and standard config files for deviating from those conventions.

I would have preferred if Iceberg picked one convention (arbitrarily) in the absence of a .project file instead of forcing its explicit presence. IMHO the choice of default directory per se (be it ./, ./src, ./source or whatever) matters less than the fact that there is a convention in place.

- I don’t see why there needs to be a 1:1 relationship between a repository and working copy in pharo. It is like this at the moment already but the .project file manifests this. So it should not be supported to have more source dirs in one git repo? It might be not a good idea that the client has to write the source dir but it opens the possibility that there can be more than one.

I see your point here, but by using separate source directories you're sort of creating a hydra project… What I mean here is that the source directories are separate, but their histories are tangled. If you want separate source dirs it kinda means that you want separate change histories, doesn't it? What if the same class has diverging definitions in separate directories (I wonder what maven does in that case…)?

On the other hand, separate source directories would be helpful to work with git-subrepo and similar tools…

Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet

NorbertHartl

Re: [Pharo-users] New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

Am 08.08.2018 um 14:12 schrieb Herbert Vojčík <[hidden email]>:

Damien Pollet wrote on 8. 8. 2018 13:53:
First of all, quick stupid question: I'm currently loading my code with <a href="gitlocal://./src" class="">gitlocal://./src as the repository URL (my workflow starts in a terminal rather than in a Pharo image)
Should I just remove the /src part, now that my repo has the project metadata?
Also, are more features planned for the .project file? E.g. what about storing a default selection for Calypso and the Test Runner in there?
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 10:28, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email] <[hidden email]>> wrote:
   - I don’t think there can be a „standard way“ of defining source
   directory. And I don’t think that a tool should enforce this
   however. I keep frontend and backend code in some repositories
   together so the source is in my case in backend/source. What does it
   mean for users not using the „standard“ name?
Sure there can. Look at any ruby or maven project, they all have strong conventions for organizing projects and standard config files for deviating from those conventions.
I would have preferred if Iceberg picked one convention (arbitrarily) in the absence of a .project file instead of forcing its explicit presence. IMHO the choice of default directory per se (be it ./, ./src, ./source or whatever) matters less than the fact that there is a convention in place.
   - I don’t see why there needs to be a 1:1 relationship between a
   repository and working copy in pharo. It is like this at the moment
   already but the .project file manifests this. So it should not be
   supported to have more source dirs in one git repo? It might be not
   a good idea that the client has to write the source dir but it opens
   the possibility that there can be more than one.
I see your point here, but by using separate source directories you're sort of creating a hydra project… What I mean here is that the source directories are separate, but their histories are tangled. If you want separate source dirs it kinda means that you want separate change histories, doesn't it? What if the same class has diverging definitions in separate directories (I wonder what maven does in that case…)?

There are monorepos. Some people / companies love them.

One of these companies we know for good. It is google. Google has one (!) repositoryf for all their software.

And that is the point I want to stretch here. One repo with one project and a standard source directory is too theoretical and too narrow in thoughts. Today there is no possibility to reliably make one product out of multiple repos. Git submodule and git subtree are not even close to something reliable and usable. Descriptions like metacello are language centric. So what is the most secure way of defining a single product? It is the mono repo. That is the main reason I have my sources in backend/source because there is a javascript frontend in the same repo because I want to have one reliable source that defines my product and I can be sure that the backend and frontend are always the ones that match.

I don’t think it is a good idea if we once leave the island to embrace something like git just to make git islandish a little later.

Just to be very clear. We are talking about two files: .project and .properties. I have nothing against .properties because we have multiple formats possible so making it explicit is a good idea. But .project makes every repo a single source repo. If we enforce .properties files why do we not scan the repo for directories containing this file? If none is found we cannot know (or we add looking at some default locations). If multiple directory are found I can add that to iceberg as a real project out of the combination for repository-source directory. This way I could have multiple projects out of one repo. And with the possibility of having multiple source directories it is obvious that the path still needs to be added to a url in metacello. Unless there is one of this directories marked to be the default which would be loaded if no directory is given. This way the default directory would be the one selected if only one is there. So you can have multiple projects in one repo and if this is only one per project the directory can be automatically resolved. Use case kept.

Norbert

On the other hand, separate source directories would be helpful to work with git-subrepo and similar tools…
--
Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet

Tim Mackinnon

Re: [Pharo-users] New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

On a slightly related note - and I’m hearing what Norbert is saying as I need to work on multi language projects - it would be handy if I could specify the name of the project somehow.

My /exercism/pharo repo (which was created for me) - appear in Iceberg as Pharo - which is confusing, as I really want to call it Execercism, but have no way to do this currently (and I support its something the .projects file would enable right?)

Tim

On 9 Aug 2018, at 11:17, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:

Am 08.08.2018 um 14:12 schrieb Herbert Vojčík <[hidden email]>:

Damien Pollet wrote on 8. 8. 2018 13:53:
First of all, quick stupid question: I'm currently loading my code with <a href="gitlocal://./src" class="">gitlocal://./src as the repository URL (my workflow starts in a terminal rather than in a Pharo image)
Should I just remove the /src part, now that my repo has the project metadata?
Also, are more features planned for the .project file? E.g. what about storing a default selection for Calypso and the Test Runner in there?
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 10:28, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email] <[hidden email]>> wrote:
   - I don’t think there can be a „standard way“ of defining source
   directory. And I don’t think that a tool should enforce this
   however. I keep frontend and backend code in some repositories
   together so the source is in my case in backend/source. What does it
   mean for users not using the „standard“ name?
Sure there can. Look at any ruby or maven project, they all have strong conventions for organizing projects and standard config files for deviating from those conventions.
I would have preferred if Iceberg picked one convention (arbitrarily) in the absence of a .project file instead of forcing its explicit presence. IMHO the choice of default directory per se (be it ./, ./src, ./source or whatever) matters less than the fact that there is a convention in place.
   - I don’t see why there needs to be a 1:1 relationship between a
   repository and working copy in pharo. It is like this at the moment
   already but the .project file manifests this. So it should not be
   supported to have more source dirs in one git repo? It might be not
   a good idea that the client has to write the source dir but it opens
   the possibility that there can be more than one.
I see your point here, but by using separate source directories you're sort of creating a hydra project… What I mean here is that the source directories are separate, but their histories are tangled. If you want separate source dirs it kinda means that you want separate change histories, doesn't it? What if the same class has diverging definitions in separate directories (I wonder what maven does in that case…)?

There are monorepos. Some people / companies love them.

One of these companies we know for good. It is google. Google has one (!) repositoryf for all their software.

And that is the point I want to stretch here. One repo with one project and a standard source directory is too theoretical and too narrow in thoughts. Today there is no possibility to reliably make one product out of multiple repos. Git submodule and git subtree are not even close to something reliable and usable. Descriptions like metacello are language centric. So what is the most secure way of defining a single product? It is the mono repo. That is the main reason I have my sources in backend/source because there is a javascript frontend in the same repo because I want to have one reliable source that defines my product and I can be sure that the backend and frontend are always the ones that match.

I don’t think it is a good idea if we once leave the island to embrace something like git just to make git islandish a little later.

Just to be very clear. We are talking about two files: .project and .properties. I have nothing against .properties because we have multiple formats possible so making it explicit is a good idea. But .project makes every repo a single source repo. If we enforce .properties files why do we not scan the repo for directories containing this file? If none is found we cannot know (or we add looking at some default locations). If multiple directory are found I can add that to iceberg as a real project out of the combination for repository-source directory. This way I could have multiple projects out of one repo. And with the possibility of having multiple source directories it is obvious that the path still needs to be added to a url in metacello. Unless there is one of this directories marked to be the default which would be loaded if no directory is given. This way the default directory would be the one selected if only one is there. So you can have multiple projects in one repo and if this is only one per project the directory can be automatically resolved. Use case kept.

Norbert

On the other hand, separate source directories would be helpful to work with git-subrepo and similar tools…
--
Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet

Guillermo Polito

Re: New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

In reply to this post by NorbertHartl

[SNIP]
I think I can see what is the rationale behind it but I’m not sure this can be the way to go:

- I don’t think there can be a „standard way“ of defining source directory. And I don’t think that a tool should enforce this however. I keep frontend and backend code in some repositories together so the source is in my case in backend/source. What does it mean for users not using the „standard“ name?

Well, I think the opposite. The tool should enforce some standard way, and then, if you want to diverge from it you should specify it explicitly.

- I don’t see why there needs to be a 1:1 relationship between a repository and working copy in pharo. It is like this at the moment already but the .project file manifests this. So it should not be supported to have more source dirs in one git repo? It might be not a good idea that the client has to write the source dir but it opens the possibility that there can be more than one.

Our solution doesn't close the door either. Actually, we were thinking on having composite projects (a project with subprojects), which would support your use case. We are aware we wanted this for Pharo so for example we can split pharo itself in several smaller subprojects instead of having the mess of ~500 packages we have today. However, we were not aware of any project out there using such setup, and previous iceberg versions was maybe supporting this just "by chance" and not by design. (Just imagine that having in the same image two repositories with the same git repository behind but different source directories could be a way, but it's more of a workaround).

This said, could you explain better how you were using this so far?

- you have different source directories for frontend/backend?

- you interact with them as different repositories in the same image? or from different images pointing to the same repo?

- every time you commit in one of the iceberg repositories you get detached in the other(s)?

This said, I'd like to support this scenarios, but I want to do it by design :)

- My mode of working is to have an eye on dirty repositories because that shows what the impact of your work is. If I have a lot of dirty repositories in my repository list it does not feel good and I don’t want that. Especially for projects I don’t have write access to. How can I change this? I’m not sure that assuming everyone will add these files is a likely one.

Maybe we need to be less invasive with colors? My point of view is that Monticello shows tons of packages and repositories, automatic rewrite and auto-deprecation rules rewrite code dynamically and mark monticello packages as dirty. But nobody ever complained about monticello or tried to change it.

What are the packages you depend on and you have no write access to? If we make a pull request per day, I think we can solve this situation really fast...

Norbert

Guille Polito

Research Engineer

Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille

CRIStAL - UMR 9189

French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr

Web: http://guillep.github.io

Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13

Guillermo Polito

Re: [Pharo-users] New Iceberg Version 1.2.1

In reply to this post by NorbertHartl

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:18 AM Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:

Am 08.08.2018 um 14:12 schrieb Herbert Vojčík <[hidden email]>:

Damien Pollet wrote on 8. 8. 2018 13:53:
First of all, quick stupid question: I'm currently loading my code with gitlocal://./src as the repository URL (my workflow starts in a terminal rather than in a Pharo image)
Should I just remove the /src part, now that my repo has the project metadata?
Also, are more features planned for the .project file? E.g. what about storing a default selection for Calypso and the Test Runner in there?
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 10:28, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email] <[hidden email]>> wrote:
   - I don’t think there can be a „standard way“ of defining source
   directory. And I don’t think that a tool should enforce this
   however. I keep frontend and backend code in some repositories
   together so the source is in my case in backend/source. What does it
   mean for users not using the „standard“ name?
Sure there can. Look at any ruby or maven project, they all have strong conventions for organizing projects and standard config files for deviating from those conventions.
I would have preferred if Iceberg picked one convention (arbitrarily) in the absence of a .project file instead of forcing its explicit presence. IMHO the choice of default directory per se (be it ./, ./src, ./source or whatever) matters less than the fact that there is a convention in place.
   - I don’t see why there needs to be a 1:1 relationship between a
   repository and working copy in pharo. It is like this at the moment
   already but the .project file manifests this. So it should not be
   supported to have more source dirs in one git repo? It might be not
   a good idea that the client has to write the source dir but it opens
   the possibility that there can be more than one.
I see your point here, but by using separate source directories you're sort of creating a hydra project… What I mean here is that the source directories are separate, but their histories are tangled. If you want separate source dirs it kinda means that you want separate change histories, doesn't it? What if the same class has diverging definitions in separate directories (I wonder what maven does in that case…)?

There are monorepos. Some people / companies love them.

One of these companies we know for good. It is google. Google has one (!) repositoryf for all their software.

And that is the point I want to stretch here. One repo with one project and a standard source directory is too theoretical and too narrow in thoughts.

I think that you underestimate people when you say this.

Today there is no possibility to reliably make one product out of multiple repos. Git submodule and git subtree are not even close to something reliable and usable.

We are well aware of this. And that's why Pharo is not using any of them. But this goes against what you said before, or I'm not getting something.

Descriptions like metacello are language centric.

Yes. But I don't understand why this comes up. You would like language... "agnostic"? For example?

So what is the most secure way of defining a single product? It is the mono repo. That is the main reason I have my sources in backend/source because there is a javascript frontend in the same repo because I want to have one reliable source that defines my product and I can be sure that the backend and frontend are always the ones that match.

Just to repeat myself (and just to avoid missing it in the previous emails ^^). Can you describe better your needs for "multiple iceberg subdirectories"?

I don’t think it is a good idea if we once leave the island to embrace something like git just to make git islandish a little later.

I did not understand this...

Just to be very clear. We are talking about two files: .project and .properties. I have nothing against .properties because we have multiple formats possible so making it explicit is a good idea. But .project makes every repo a single source repo. If we enforce .properties files why do we not scan the repo for directories containing this file? If none is found we cannot know (or we add looking at some default locations). If multiple directory are found I can add that to iceberg as a real project out of the combination for repository-source directory.

This way I could have multiple projects out of one repo. And with the possibility of having multiple source directories it is obvious that the path still needs to be added to a url in metacello.

Unless there is one of this directories marked to be the default which would be loaded if no directory is given. This way the default directory would be the one selected if only one is there. So you can have multiple projects in one repo and if this is only one per project the directory can be automatically resolved. Use case kept.

Yes it could be done, but it's not so easy. I think you're underestimating the problem. For example,

- tons of old projects have no .properties file.

- so far iceberg only explicitly supported one code directory, and assumed that "no subdirectory" means root directory, not "default" one

- If we discover two subdirectories in your repository, and you add a package into your repository, in which subdirectory should it be?

- Should in this case be able to add the same package to both subdirectories? Do we commit them at the same time? Or they have different versions?

Let's add that all these changes may involve changes in:

- UI (and doing it properly takes time to design it, not just "coding" it)

- merge

Now, again, I can understand that the change make you uncomfortable, but I'd prefer that we talk about what are your needs instead of "how easy it could be done if we weren't stupid".

Norbert

On the other hand, separate source directories would be helpful to work with git-subrepo and similar tools…
--
Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet

Guille Polito

Research Engineer

Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille

CRIStAL - UMR 9189

French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr

Web: http://guillep.github.io

Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13