Mariano,
I think that would be a good idea. I have some thoughts on doing that,
but I'd rather have a few more people work through the problem on their
own and then we can discuss the pros and cons of different approaches...
I've been having these kinds of discussions with myself, but I always
win the argument:)
Dale
On 12/19/2010 02:39 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
> Hi dale. This is awesome. SOrry for being quite out...but I am trying to
> focus on my duties :(
>
> maybe we will be able to build pharo dev 1.2 using symbolic versions?
>
> cheers
>
> Mariano
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Dale <
[hidden email]
> <mailto:
[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> I've just done a series of checkins of the configurations referenced
> from the Pharo development configuration.
>
> I've updated each of the configurations with the "correct symbolic
> version" for Pharo1.0 and Pharo1.1 based upon what is loaded in the
> one-click images and the ConfigurationOfPharo specifications ... when
> in doubt I went with the specified version.
>
> Here's the list of configs:
>
> ProfStef
> Shout
> AutomaticMethodCategorizer
> ObjectMetaTools
> Nile
> PharoMorphicExtras
> NewInspector
> OCompletion
> PharoSound
> ScriptManager
> HelpSystem
> OmniBrowser
> RefactoringBrowser
> PharoNonCore
> Gofer
>
> The symbolic version methods are ignored by earlier versions of
> Metacello, so they shouldn't affect anything ...
>
> I plan to perform validations on all of the configurations in
> MetacelloRepository and will be checking in fixes for the critical
> issues that can affect Metacello (there are some issues with the most
> recent version of Pharo that I will fix shortly).
>
> Dale
>
>
Locked
