RPackage, Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo

> I am also for the 2 option :)
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As  you know, we want to replace the old PackageInfo structure with
>> RPackage. Last weeks Pharo 2.0 has been really unstable because of this
>> effort, and it will be unstable yet a few days more, so I want to review the
>> actions we are taking, so you know why this happnes and the result we want
>> to obtain.
>> So... first: Why replace PackageInfo and PackageOrganizer? The short
>> answer is: because they suck :) The more or less long answer is: because
>> their existence introduces a lot of penalties in the system, and forces to a
>> lot of workarounds to manage what should be a simple system categories
>> manager... take for instance the match MCPackage-PackageInfo-Class
>> categories. Each MCPackage maps to a unique PackageInfo, but package info
>> contains string pattern matched class categories. Tools uses this and
>> well... performance is frankly disappointing in many case. Like this, there
>> are lots of other reasons.
>> So... RPackage will solve this by keeping a view of the system, not having
>> to calculate it everytime. RPackage will keep also the list of classes,
>> extension, etc. so tools can operate with them in a better/faster way.
>>
>> Question is: How to migrate in the less painful way?
>>
>> Attempt 1) Let each RPackage be one PackageInfo.
>>
>> We first thought this was the best path so, we spend some time moving in
>> that direction. The advantage is that migration from Monticello and
>> PackageInfo is trivial, but then the problems started to happen: PackageInfo
>> (and current RPackage) contains N class categories so, there is an impedance
>> mismatch between what we was seeing and what users/tools expect (they work
>> with class categories, not with RPackage or PackageInfo).
>> To solve that, we added class categories as RPackage tags (yep RPackage
>> allows you to tag classes). But then we need to update in ver annoying ways
>> the tools. And we also has now the fact that class categories are now a tag
>> into an RPackage. Something really obscure and that was causing a lot of
>> pain...
>>

>> So, we rolled back...
>>
>> Attempt 2) Let each Class Category be one RPackage.
>>
>> Ok, this is very simple (and that's the beauty on it)... each tools and
>> conventions will match perfectly. Only problem here is that now, Monticello
>> is not compatible anymore. So, we worked on the concept of RPackageSet, to
>> replace PackageInfo use into Monticelo packages (we need them to load/save
>> packages and stay compatible). RPackageSet is exactly what its name says: a
>> set of RPackage instances (created on the fly, by pattern matching, so, is
>> still some kind of a hack), that is polymorphic with PackageInfo in the
>> monticello context. Thus, everything in the system can remain unchanged (or
>> almost no change, the refactoring engine needs some adjusts).
>> One extra bonus with this approach is that it let us think on more cool
>> refactors in the future: we can for instance replace class categories (now a
>> symbol) with an RPackage... and continue simplifying  the system in several
>> ways.
>>
>> ...and that's where we are now.
>> We are working hard on stabilizing the system, but that will take still
>> some days more... after that, we will be really close to the PackageInfo
>> removal.
>>

> For french: Je dirai qu'on a l'eau à la bouche, mais qu'on reste un
> peu sur notre faim ;)
>
>>> So, we rolled back...
>>>
>>> Attempt 2) Let each Class Category be one RPackage.
>>>
>>> Ok, this is very simple (and that's the beauty on it)... each tools and
>>> conventions will match perfectly. Only problem here is that now, Monticello
>>> is not compatible anymore. So, we worked on the concept of RPackageSet, to
>>> replace PackageInfo use into Monticelo packages (we need them to load/save
>>> packages and stay compatible). RPackageSet is exactly what its name says: a
>>> set of RPackage instances (created on the fly, by pattern matching, so, is
>>> still some kind of a hack), that is polymorphic with PackageInfo in the
>>> monticello context. Thus, everything in the system can remain unchanged (or
>>> almost no change, the refactoring engine needs some adjusts).
>>> One extra bonus with this approach is that it let us think on more cool
>>> refactors in the future: we can for instance replace class categories (now a
>>> symbol) with an RPackage... and continue simplifying  the system in several
>>> ways.
>>>
>>> ...and that's where we are now.
>>> We are working hard on stabilizing the system, but that will take still
>>> some days more... after that, we will be really close to the PackageInfo
>>> removal.
>>>
>
> Good, if the system was too complex in order to analyze all
> implications and completely planify the change path, then trial and
> error might be a solution, it's not a shame, but you have to write
> your goals to better remind them, and maybe make some amendments to
> your rationale because of some unanticipated features (and providing
> some degree of compatibility can lead to additional features).

>
>>> PLEASE: PackageInfo users, take this into account: PackageInfo will pass
>>> away... and is one of the parts of the system that cannot be deprecated,
>>> they has to be completely removed, prepare your tools for the rise of
>>> RPackage :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Esteban
>>>
>
> Such a change will require a stable and if possible well documented
> API (which should be quite straightforward once you have rationalized
> your design).

>
> Nicolas
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mariano
>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
>>
>

>
> Thierry
>
> ________________________________________
> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 21:37
> À : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage,   Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote:
>
>> Ok,
>>
>> It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way.
>>
>> Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(.
>
>
> you are not the only one. Benjamin too.
> Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun.
>
>
>> Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ?
>
> Yes
> Ideally we want
> one MCPackage  -        one RPackage +  tags
>
> Nothing more (no class category, no package info).
> Now we should be able to remove class categories.
> But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package).
> So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration.
>
>
> So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards
> one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes.
>
>> Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ?
>
> You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer."
> So yes it would be good to clean all that.
> RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility.
>
>
>

>
> Thierry
>
> ________________________________________
> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 21:37
> À : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage,   Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote:
>
>> Ok,
>>
>> It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way.
>>
>> Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(.
>
>
> you are not the only one. Benjamin too.
> Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun.
>
>
>> Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ?
>
> Yes
> Ideally we want
> one MCPackage  -        one RPackage +  tags
>
> Nothing more (no class category, no package info).
> Now we should be able to remove class categories.
> But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package).
> So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration.
>
>
> So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards
> one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes.
>
>> Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ?
>
> You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer."
> So yes it would be good to clean all that.
> RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility.
>
>
>

>
> Thierry
> ________________________________________
> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [[hidden email]]
> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 22:37
> À : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RE :  RPackage,     Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:08 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It's hard to converse with that Exchange webmail. Oh, Ok, here it goes.
>>
>> The one MCPackage _ One RPackage I'm Ok with, I made that working with my browser. But if this is the goal, then the current code is almost there and option 2) isn't needed ? A RPackage (the one with tags) clearly represent well what a MCPackage can be, bugs apart. (technically, it's a bit wider, since extension methods may belong to any protocol, not just the *PackageName : the AltBrowser consequently hides the extension name, which is interesting at the GUI level and works very well).
>
> That's not the goal... that *was* the goal. The goal is to have a good representation of the system with RPackage.
> And no, we were not close, we were very far away to be close.
> Here is the thing 1 MCPackage = 1 RPackage breaks everything. Tags are just tags and don't have coherence with Class Categories.
> Now, 1 MCPackage = N RPackage has much more sense because stresses a lot less the system.
>
> Now, what Stef is saying is that we wanted 1 to 1 correspondence, but a lot larger granularity... that means MCPackage matching current class categories. Not the opposite... but that means we need to ask everybody to adapt their monticello and configurations to match that vision, and that's something that it's not going to happen, not just because, for instance, Seaside has already tons of packages, do you imagine with the proposed granularity?
> Also, Versionner or other tools can help to reduce the fear to that granularity in the future, but that's not going to happen tomorrow.
>
> So, I'm really sorry your work was almost ported and we changed the rules... and I'm sorry that while looking for the best solution for everybody we some times break somethings, but that's are the risks of developing over bleeding edge :(
>
>>
>> The only thing needed is to make sure than when Monticello says X belongs to MCPackage A, that RPackageOrganizer doesn't say that X belongs to RPackage B instead, and the reverse. There is a fault in the RPackage introduction there, which is that both RPackageOrganizer and Monticello are tracking system announcements, and giving them different meanings (and RPackage propagate its changes to Monticello). I am at around 10 Pharo images I had to scrap because the damage done by those bugs was beyond repair.
>>
>> When you say force people to have one class category, one RPackage, that I do not understand why. As stated above, you have everything to handle multiple class categories in a RPackage. Why add a RPackageSet layer above ? Why make the transition break that ?
>
> "Force" is a strong word. We don't force anyone... RPackage is a construction with a purpose, not a general malleable tool. It is not a tool to create your package with your desired format. Is a way to represent the fact that system is composed from classes, who are grouped in units called categories. Categories are there for the human eye, not for the system... now, the common convention around those categories is that you see them in class declaration, as class categories, and in browser "packages" panel. Monticello packages, in other term, are conceptually collections of class categories packaged together.
> So... for me is important to maintain that notion.
> Now, there are two point of views:
> 1) you have a new completely different infrastructure (aka RPackage+tags) to represent system, and then adapt (I can say "force" too) all the tools to this (which is a lot of work). For me it looks like a hack (we have something and we force the tools to show other thing, just because), and also no real necessity to do it, or
> 2) we took our new packaging system and make it work in the most simplest way possible, focusing on maintain the system as close to the eyes as possible. RPackageSet represents a notion for Monticello packages grouping packages (and btw, it can disappear in the future, because RPackageSet responsibility belongs most probably to regular MCPackages), and RPackage instances who matches to what users expect most probably about the organization categories in their system.
>
> Our error was trying to take approach 1 first... not take path approach 2 now... and it was an error because after one month of working on that direction, the system was more and more unstable and chaotic and complex, and not what it should happens, which was the opposite.
>
>>
>> (RPackage is not, in my opinion, naming agnostic. The main bugs I found in RPackage are because someone believe it is, where it isn't)
>
> you're right, it is not.
>
>>
>> One thing I would suggest is : remove Monticello from system announcements. Make RPackageOrganizer in charge of updating the MCWorkingCopy as needed (have a coherent view of the system).
>
> That just don't work. If we remove monticello from SA, monticello doesn't know what changed and needs to reconstruct every time its state... which also means that monticello gui cannot be updated either.
>
> Esteban
>
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
>> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 21:37
>> À : [hidden email]
>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage,   Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote:
>>
>>> Ok,
>>>
>>> It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way.
>>>
>>> Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(.
>>
>>
>> you are not the only one. Benjamin too.
>> Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun.
>>
>>
>>> Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ?
>>
>> Yes
>> Ideally we want
>> one MCPackage  -        one RPackage +  tags
>>
>> Nothing more (no class category, no package info).
>> Now we should be able to remove class categories.
>> But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package).
>> So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration.
>>
>>
>> So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards
>> one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes.
>>
>>> Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ?
>>
>> You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer."
>> So yes it would be good to clean all that.
>> RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

> Hi,
>
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:08 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It's hard to converse with that Exchange webmail. Oh, Ok, here it goes.
>>
>> The one MCPackage _ One RPackage I'm Ok with, I made that working with my browser. But if this is the goal, then the current code is almost there and option 2) isn't needed ? A RPackage (the one with tags) clearly represent well what a MCPackage can be, bugs apart. (technically, it's a bit wider, since extension methods may belong to any protocol, not just the *PackageName : the AltBrowser consequently hides the extension name, which is interesting at the GUI level and works very well).
>
> That's not the goal... that *was* the goal. The goal is to have a good representation of the system with RPackage.
> And no, we were not close, we were very far away to be close.
> Here is the thing 1 MCPackage = 1 RPackage breaks everything. Tags are just tags and don't have coherence with Class Categories.
> Now, 1 MCPackage = N RPackage has much more sense because stresses a lot less the system.
>
> Now, what Stef is saying is that we wanted 1 to 1 correspondence, but a lot larger granularity... that means MCPackage matching current class categories. Not the opposite... but that means we need to ask everybody to adapt their monticello and configurations to match that vision, and that's something that it's not going to happen, not just because, for instance, Seaside has already tons of packages, do you imagine with the proposed granularity?
> Also, Versionner or other tools can help to reduce the fear to that granularity in the future, but that's not going to happen tomorrow.
>
> So, I'm really sorry your work was almost ported and we changed the rules... and I'm sorry that while looking for the best solution for everybody we some times break somethings, but that's are the risks of developing over bleeding edge :(
>
>>
>> The only thing needed is to make sure than when Monticello says X belongs to MCPackage A, that RPackageOrganizer doesn't say that X belongs to RPackage B instead, and the reverse. There is a fault in the RPackage introduction there, which is that both RPackageOrganizer and Monticello are tracking system announcements, and giving them different meanings (and RPackage propagate its changes to Monticello). I am at around 10 Pharo images I had to scrap because the damage done by those bugs was beyond repair.
>>
>> When you say force people to have one class category, one RPackage, that I do not understand why. As stated above, you have everything to handle multiple class categories in a RPackage. Why add a RPackageSet layer above ? Why make the transition break that ?
>
> "Force" is a strong word. We don't force anyone... RPackage is a construction with a purpose, not a general malleable tool. It is not a tool to create your package with your desired format. Is a way to represent the fact that system is composed from classes, who are grouped in units called categories. Categories are there for the human eye, not for the system... now, the common convention around those categories is that you see them in class declaration, as class categories, and in browser "packages" panel. Monticello packages, in other term, are conceptually collections of class categories packaged together.
> So... for me is important to maintain that notion.
> Now, there are two point of views:
> 1) you have a new completely different infrastructure (aka RPackage+tags) to represent system, and then adapt (I can say "force" too) all the tools to this (which is a lot of work). For me it looks like a hack (we have something and we force the tools to show other thing, just because), and also no real necessity to do it, or
> 2) we took our new packaging system and make it work in the most simplest way possible, focusing on maintain the system as close to the eyes as possible. RPackageSet represents a notion for Monticello packages grouping packages (and btw, it can disappear in the future, because RPackageSet responsibility belongs most probably to regular MCPackages), and RPackage instances who matches to what users expect most probably about the organization categories in their system.
>
> Our error was trying to take approach 1 first... not take path approach 2 now... and it was an error because after one month of working on that direction, the system was more and more unstable and chaotic and complex, and not what it should happens, which was the opposite.
>
>>
>> (RPackage is not, in my opinion, naming agnostic. The main bugs I found in RPackage are because someone believe it is, where it isn't)
>
> you're right, it is not.
>
>>
>> One thing I would suggest is : remove Monticello from system announcements. Make RPackageOrganizer in charge of updating the MCWorkingCopy as needed (have a coherent view of the system).
>
> That just don't work. If we remove monticello from SA, monticello doesn't know what changed and needs to reconstruct every time its state... which also means that monticello gui cannot be updated either.
>
> Esteban
>
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
>> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 21:37
>> À : [hidden email]
>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage,   Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote:
>>
>>> Ok,
>>>
>>> It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way.
>>>
>>> Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(.
>>
>>
>> you are not the only one. Benjamin too.
>> Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun.
>>
>>
>>> Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ?
>>
>> Yes
>> Ideally we want
>> one MCPackage  -        one RPackage +  tags
>>
>> Nothing more (no class category, no package info).
>> Now we should be able to remove class categories.
>> But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package).
>> So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration.
>>
>>
>> So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards
>> one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes.
>>
>>> Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ?
>>
>> You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer."
>> So yes it would be good to clean all that.
>> RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>
> Thierry
> ________________________________________
> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [[hidden email]]
> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 22:37
> À : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RE :  RPackage,     Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:08 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It's hard to converse with that Exchange webmail. Oh, Ok, here it goes.
>>
>> The one MCPackage _ One RPackage I'm Ok with, I made that working with my browser. But if this is the goal, then the current code is almost there and option 2) isn't needed ? A RPackage (the one with tags) clearly represent well what a MCPackage can be, bugs apart. (technically, it's a bit wider, since extension methods may belong to any protocol, not just the *PackageName : the AltBrowser consequently hides the extension name, which is interesting at the GUI level and works very well).
>
> That's not the goal... that *was* the goal. The goal is to have a good representation of the system with RPackage.
> And no, we were not close, we were very far away to be close.
> Here is the thing 1 MCPackage = 1 RPackage breaks everything. Tags are just tags and don't have coherence with Class Categories.
> Now, 1 MCPackage = N RPackage has much more sense because stresses a lot less the system.
>
> Now, what Stef is saying is that we wanted 1 to 1 correspondence, but a lot larger granularity... that means MCPackage matching current class categories. Not the opposite... but that means we need to ask everybody to adapt their monticello and configurations to match that vision, and that's something that it's not going to happen, not just because, for instance, Seaside has already tons of packages, do you imagine with the proposed granularity?
> Also, Versionner or other tools can help to reduce the fear to that granularity in the future, but that's not going to happen tomorrow.
>
> So, I'm really sorry your work was almost ported and we changed the rules... and I'm sorry that while looking for the best solution for everybody we some times break somethings, but that's are the risks of developing over bleeding edge :(
>
>>
>> The only thing needed is to make sure than when Monticello says X belongs to MCPackage A, that RPackageOrganizer doesn't say that X belongs to RPackage B instead, and the reverse. There is a fault in the RPackage introduction there, which is that both RPackageOrganizer and Monticello are tracking system announcements, and giving them different meanings (and RPackage propagate its changes to Monticello). I am at around 10 Pharo images I had to scrap because the damage done by those bugs was beyond repair.
>>
>> When you say force people to have one class category, one RPackage, that I do not understand why. As stated above, you have everything to handle multiple class categories in a RPackage. Why add a RPackageSet layer above ? Why make the transition break that ?
>
> "Force" is a strong word. We don't force anyone... RPackage is a construction with a purpose, not a general malleable tool. It is not a tool to create your package with your desired format. Is a way to represent the fact that system is composed from classes, who are grouped in units called categories. Categories are there for the human eye, not for the system... now, the common convention around those categories is that you see them in class declaration, as class categories, and in browser "packages" panel. Monticello packages, in other term, are conceptually collections of class categories packaged together.
> So... for me is important to maintain that notion.
> Now, there are two point of views:
> 1) you have a new completely different infrastructure (aka RPackage+tags) to represent system, and then adapt (I can say "force" too) all the tools to this (which is a lot of work). For me it looks like a hack (we have something and we force the tools to show other thing, just because), and also no real necessity to do it, or
> 2) we took our new packaging system and make it work in the most simplest way possible, focusing on maintain the system as close to the eyes as possible. RPackageSet represents a notion for Monticello packages grouping packages (and btw, it can disappear in the future, because RPackageSet responsibility belongs most probably to regular MCPackages), and RPackage instances who matches to what users expect most probably about the organization categories in their system.
>
> Our error was trying to take approach 1 first... not take path approach 2 now... and it was an error because after one month of working on that direction, the system was more and more unstable and chaotic and complex, and not what it should happens, which was the opposite.
>
>>
>> (RPackage is not, in my opinion, naming agnostic. The main bugs I found in RPackage are because someone believe it is, where it isn't)
>
> you're right, it is not.
>
>>
>> One thing I would suggest is : remove Monticello from system announcements. Make RPackageOrganizer in charge of updating the MCWorkingCopy as needed (have a coherent view of the system).
>
> That just don't work. If we remove monticello from SA, monticello doesn't know what changed and needs to reconstruct every time its state... which also means that monticello gui cannot be updated either.
>
> Esteban
>
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
>> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 21:37
>> À : [hidden email]
>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage,   Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote:
>>
>>> Ok,
>>>
>>> It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way.
>>>
>>> Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(.
>>
>>
>> you are not the only one. Benjamin too.
>> Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun.
>>
>>
>>> Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ?
>>
>> Yes
>> Ideally we want
>> one MCPackage  -        one RPackage +  tags
>>
>> Nothing more (no class category, no package info).
>> Now we should be able to remove class categories.
>> But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package).
>> So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration.
>>
>>
>> So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards
>> one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes.
>>
>>> Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ?
>>
>> You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer."
>> So yes it would be good to clean all that.
>> RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

> The only thing needed is to make sure than when Monticello says X belongs to MCPackage A, that RPackageOrganizer doesn't say that X belongs to RPackage B instead, and the reverse. There is a fault in the RPackage introduction there, which is that both RPackageOrganizer and Monticello are tracking system announcements, and giving them different meanings (and RPackage propagate its changes to Monticello). I am at around 10 Pharo images I had to scrap because the damage done by those bugs was beyond repair.
>
> When you say force people to have one class category, one RPackage, that I do not understand why. As stated above, you have everything to handle multiple class categories in a RPackage. Why add a RPackageSet layer above ? Why make the transition break that ?
>
> (RPackage is not, in my opinion, naming agnostic. The main bugs I found in RPackage are because someone believe it is, where it isn't)
>
> One thing I would suggest is : remove Monticello from system announcements. Make RPackageOrganizer in charge of updating the MCWorkingCopy as needed (have a coherent view of the system).
>
> Thierry
>
> ________________________________________
> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 21:37
> À : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage,   Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote:
>
>> Ok,
>>
>> It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way.
>>
>> Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(.
>
>
> you are not the only one. Benjamin too.
> Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun.
>
>
>> Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ?
>
> Yes
> Ideally we want
> one MCPackage  -        one RPackage +  tags
>
> Nothing more (no class category, no package info).
> Now we should be able to remove class categories.
> But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package).
> So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration.
>
>
> So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards
> one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes.
>
>> Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ?
>
> You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer."
> So yes it would be good to clean all that.
> RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility.
>
>
>

> Thierry
>
> ________________________________________
> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [[hidden email]]
> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 23:18
> À : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RE :  RE :  RPackage,       Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:04 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I will be a bit harder to convince then. 1 MCPackage = N RPackage doesn't strike me as any better than 1 MCPackage = 1 RPackage with tags, apart from performance issues. Remember that I was using option 1 in depth and hitting bugs, but not that much.
>>
>> My opinion is that you don't really know what went wrong with option 1, except the implementation became unmanageable. So, I expect option 2 to be hardly better, sadly. And, as it promises breaking existing configurations, it will be a lot more fun !
>
>> Yeah, probably I'm just not smart enough... I'm sorry not being at the required level, I just do my best. But then, this was largely discussed in the team, with Marcus, Guille, Camillo and Mariano (and also with Stef, btw)... we discussed the problem and together we decided the path to follow.
>
>>
>> By the way, if you enlarge the vision with RPackage, and think about the size of the overall system and how it has evolved a lot since the class categories of the beginning of Smalltalk, then your option 2 is, for me, already obsolete. You need more levels than the two you are promising with option 2. Scrolling throught thousands of categories is not fun; having packages which add hundreds of methods as an extension to a class is clearly not scalable and manageable. And scrolling through hundreds of package isn't either (or are you all working on 30" screens ? I'm not.).
>>
>>> That just don't work. If we remove monticello from SA, monticello doesn't know what changed and needs to >reconstruct every time its state... which also means that monticello gui cannot be updated either.
>>
>> This is wrong, since RPackageOrganizer, being aware of the changes, could update monticello and maintain a coherent view. It would have made the situation a tiny bit better.
>
> By coupling RPackageOrganizer with Monticello. Nice piece of design :)
>
> Esteban
>
>>
>> Thierry
>> ________________________________________
>> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Esteban Lorenzano [[hidden email]]
>> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 22:37
>> À : [hidden email]
>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RE :  RPackage,     Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:08 PM, GOUBIER Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> It's hard to converse with that Exchange webmail. Oh, Ok, here it goes.
>>>
>>> The one MCPackage _ One RPackage I'm Ok with, I made that working with my browser. But if this is the goal, then the current code is almost there and option 2) isn't needed ? A RPackage (the one with tags) clearly represent well what a MCPackage can be, bugs apart. (technically, it's a bit wider, since extension methods may belong to any protocol, not just the *PackageName : the AltBrowser consequently hides the extension name, which is interesting at the GUI level and works very well).
>>
>> That's not the goal... that *was* the goal. The goal is to have a good representation of the system with RPackage.
>> And no, we were not close, we were very far away to be close.
>> Here is the thing 1 MCPackage = 1 RPackage breaks everything. Tags are just tags and don't have coherence with Class Categories.
>> Now, 1 MCPackage = N RPackage has much more sense because stresses a lot less the system.
>>
>> Now, what Stef is saying is that we wanted 1 to 1 correspondence, but a lot larger granularity... that means MCPackage matching current class categories. Not the opposite... but that means we need to ask everybody to adapt their monticello and configurations to match that vision, and that's something that it's not going to happen, not just because, for instance, Seaside has already tons of packages, do you imagine with the proposed granularity?
>> Also, Versionner or other tools can help to reduce the fear to that granularity in the future, but that's not going to happen tomorrow.
>>
>> So, I'm really sorry your work was almost ported and we changed the rules... and I'm sorry that while looking for the best solution for everybody we some times break somethings, but that's are the risks of developing over bleeding edge :(
>>
>>>
>>> The only thing needed is to make sure than when Monticello says X belongs to MCPackage A, that RPackageOrganizer doesn't say that X belongs to RPackage B instead, and the reverse. There is a fault in the RPackage introduction there, which is that both RPackageOrganizer and Monticello are tracking system announcements, and giving them different meanings (and RPackage propagate its changes to Monticello). I am at around 10 Pharo images I had to scrap because the damage done by those bugs was beyond repair.
>>>
>>> When you say force people to have one class category, one RPackage, that I do not understand why. As stated above, you have everything to handle multiple class categories in a RPackage. Why add a RPackageSet layer above ? Why make the transition break that ?
>>
>> "Force" is a strong word. We don't force anyone... RPackage is a construction with a purpose, not a general malleable tool. It is not a tool to create your package with your desired format. Is a way to represent the fact that system is composed from classes, who are grouped in units called categories. Categories are there for the human eye, not for the system... now, the common convention around those categories is that you see them in class declaration, as class categories, and in browser "packages" panel. Monticello packages, in other term, are conceptually collections of class categories packaged together.
>> So... for me is important to maintain that notion.
>> Now, there are two point of views:
>> 1) you have a new completely different infrastructure (aka RPackage+tags) to represent system, and then adapt (I can say "force" too) all the tools to this (which is a lot of work). For me it looks like a hack (we have something and we force the tools to show other thing, just because), and also no real necessity to do it, or
>> 2) we took our new packaging system and make it work in the most simplest way possible, focusing on maintain the system as close to the eyes as possible. RPackageSet represents a notion for Monticello packages grouping packages (and btw, it can disappear in the future, because RPackageSet responsibility belongs most probably to regular MCPackages), and RPackage instances who matches to what users expect most probably about the organization categories in their system.
>>
>> Our error was trying to take approach 1 first... not take path approach 2 now... and it was an error because after one month of working on that direction, the system was more and more unstable and chaotic and complex, and not what it should happens, which was the opposite.
>>
>>>
>>> (RPackage is not, in my opinion, naming agnostic. The main bugs I found in RPackage are because someone believe it is, where it isn't)
>>
>> you're right, it is not.
>>
>>>
>>> One thing I would suggest is : remove Monticello from system announcements. Make RPackageOrganizer in charge of updating the MCWorkingCopy as needed (have a coherent view of the system).
>>
>> That just don't work. If we remove monticello from SA, monticello doesn't know what changed and needs to reconstruct every time its state... which also means that monticello gui cannot be updated either.
>>
>> Esteban
>>
>>>
>>> Thierry
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> De : [hidden email] [[hidden email]] de la part de Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
>>> Date d'envoi : vendredi 7 septembre 2012 21:37
>>> À : [hidden email]
>>> Objet : Re: [Pharo-project] RPackage,   Monticello and the removal of PackageInfo
>>>
>>> On Sep 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM, GOUBIER Thierry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok,
>>>>
>>>> It's good to know, because, for me, as I was / I am trying to track the changes in RPackage for the past two weeks, it seemed that RPackage was happily oscillating between 1 and 2, and, to add to the fun, backporting it's instability by creating spurious packages in Monticello on the way.
>>>>
>>>> Oh well, I almost managed to stabilize on 1), now I'll have to recode for 2). Should have stuck to PackageInfo :-(.
>>>
>>>
>>> you are not the only one. Benjamin too.
>>> Now we are fighting with it and this is just not for fun.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is there a plan to have clear semantics of the different matches planned (extension categories and sub categories, class category, package sub-category) ?
>>>
>>> Yes
>>> Ideally we want
>>> one MCPackage  -        one RPackage +  tags
>>>
>>> Nothing more (no class category, no package info).
>>> Now we should be able to remove class categories.
>>> But this does not work easily because everybody would have to rewrite configurationOf for their projects (since each categories would be turned into a package).
>>> So may be when versionner will be working we can add a behavior to migrate automatically configuration.
>>>
>>>
>>> So esteban will see if his idea is working which leads to a first class category and we can in a second period go more towards
>>> one MCPackage - one RPackage with tagged classes.
>>>
>>>> Monticello has already set a few conventions (not case sensitive, for example) (and they are not respected by quite a few packages) and not a few of the RPackage bugs are linked to it not respecting it (i.e. some methods of package matching in RPackage are case sensitive, whereas they are not in MCWorkingCopy) ?
>>>
>>> You forgot to add "crap in PackageOrganizer."
>>> So yes it would be good to clean all that.
>>> RPackage is totally agostic to naming conventions but we have to create them and support backward compatibility.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>