Re: [Moose-dev] Re: duplication between default: and version40beta2:?
Locked
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: duplication between default: and version40beta2:?
 
|
Yeh,
Now, I understand the process... (I am slow :) ) But, in this process we must specify versions and maintain it. Is there a solution (in monticello maybe) to say a version of a package is stable. So in this case, we can say "I want last stable version of my package" and we do not need to maintain ConfigurationOf. Maybe this discussion is more global than moose community, So I copy it in pharo mailing list. Jannik On Dec 3, 2009, at 13:15 , Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi Stef, > > As I mentioned before, default represents the work in progress. It can happen that the work in progress is the same as the previously released version, and that is why you will see duplication. > > Another possibility would be to reuse the previous configuration and just mention the delta (of adding new packages), but I am not sure this would scale in the long run. > > So, the current process is: > - work on default > - when we release, we copy the method in a new baselineXXX > - we create a hardcoded version in versionXXX > > Cheers, > Doru > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: duplication between default: and version40beta2:?
|
|
On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Laval Jannik wrote: > Yeh, > > Now, I understand the process... (I am slow :) ) > > But, in this process we must specify versions and maintain it. > Is there a solution (in monticello maybe) to say a version of a package is stable. > So in this case, we can say "I want last stable version of my package" and we do not need to maintain ConfigurationOf. > The problem is that it's not one package... your system will be 20 packges. You can say " load the latest of all, that works". But: now I want to load the version that worked so great last month. Which set of packages exactly where that? Tagging single packages as "release" will not help, as you don't have the info which released package works with which other released package. Marcus _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: Re: duplication between default: and version40beta2:?
|
|
Hi,
Not every loading strategy have the same goal or the same context. Sub projects will be developed and published in their own context without taking into account the overall project. However, when maintaining the overall project, I want to be able to say "load latest" so that I can easily load everything and check whether everything still holds together. For overall release management, I do not want to rely on "load latest". Instead I will release a coherent version when I see that it works. This will be a fixed set of packages with exact versions that will work together. Cheers, Doru On 3 Dec 2009, at 14:21, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Laval Jannik wrote: > >> Yeh, >> >> Now, I understand the process... (I am slow :) ) >> >> But, in this process we must specify versions and maintain it. >> Is there a solution (in monticello maybe) to say a version of a >> package is stable. >> So in this case, we can say "I want last stable version of my >> package" and we do not need to maintain ConfigurationOf. >> > > The problem is that it's not one package... your system will be 20 > packges. You can say " load the latest of all, that works". > But: now I want to load the version that worked so great last month. > Which set of packages exactly where that? > > Tagging single packages as "release" will not help, as you don't > have the info which released package works with which other > released package. > > > Marcus > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com "Obvious things are difficult to teach." _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: Re: duplication between default: and version40beta2:?
|
|
Still still still you can always have a map (a map of all the components you loaded that they work or not).
This is orthogonal to a release or just publications. This is a sofware artefact. I know that you know it. The fact to have map is orthogonal of the choice latest or one version. I just write that for others following our discussion.... Stef On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > Not every loading strategy have the same goal or the same context. > > Sub projects will be developed and published in their own context > without taking into account the overall project. However, when > maintaining the overall project, I want to be able to say "load > latest" so that I can easily load everything and check whether > everything still holds together. > > For overall release management, I do not want to rely on "load > latest". Instead I will release a coherent version when I see that it > works. This will be a fixed set of packages with exact versions that > will work together. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On 3 Dec 2009, at 14:21, Marcus Denker wrote: > >> >> On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Laval Jannik wrote: >> >>> Yeh, >>> >>> Now, I understand the process... (I am slow :) ) >>> >>> But, in this process we must specify versions and maintain it. >>> Is there a solution (in monticello maybe) to say a version of a >>> package is stable. >>> So in this case, we can say "I want last stable version of my >>> package" and we do not need to maintain ConfigurationOf. >>> >> >> The problem is that it's not one package... your system will be 20 >> packges. You can say " load the latest of all, that works". >> But: now I want to load the version that worked so great last month. >> Which set of packages exactly where that? >> >> Tagging single packages as "release" will not help, as you don't >> have the info which released package works with which other >> released package. >> >> >> Marcus >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Obvious things are difficult to teach." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: duplication between default: and version40beta2:?
|
|
In reply to this post by jannik laval
On 3 déc. 2009, at 09:40, Laval Jannik wrote: > Yeh, > > Now, I understand the process... (I am slow :) ) > > But, in this process we must specify versions and maintain it. > Is there a solution (in monticello maybe) to say a version of a > package is stable. > So in this case, we can say "I want last stable version of my > package" and we do not need to maintain ConfigurationOf. The way to do it with Metacello: ConfigurationOfXXX project latestVersion load It takes the latest stable version, i.e. one which is not marked as baseline, broken, or development. > > Maybe this discussion is more global than moose community, > So I copy it in pharo mailing list. > > Jannik > > On Dec 3, 2009, at 13:15 , Tudor Girba wrote: > >> Hi Stef, >> >> As I mentioned before, default represents the work in progress. It >> can happen that the work in progress is the same as the previously >> released version, and that is why you will see duplication. >> >> Another possibility would be to reuse the previous configuration >> and just mention the delta (of adding new packages), but I am not >> sure this would scale in the long run. >> >> So, the current process is: >> - work on default >> - when we release, we copy the method in a new baselineXXX >> - we create a hardcoded version in versionXXX >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go." >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Simon _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
In a Metacello context.
The map of packages and their relationships is called a #baseline version. If one loads a #baseline version the latest version of each package is loaded. The "structure" is stable but loading a #baseline version is a risky proposition for everyone except project developers themselves who are prepared to address load-time conflicts/bugs. A #development version, imports structure from the #baseline, but a specific package version is supplied for each Monticello package or project. When a development version is loaded, the explicit list of package versions are loaded. IN a #development version, the package versions are not finalized and may change over time. When a #development version is saved, there is an presumption that some level of testing has gone on and that the package versions are expected to work together. One can go to a particular version of the package in which the configuration is saved and expect to load the same packages....However, the list of package versions will change over time. For all other 'released' versions, (beta, release, alpha, stable, etc.) it is expected that the list of package versions will never change - the code base may still be alpha, but it is a stable known point with respect to package versions. (BTW, I've added the metacello group to this cross-posted message:) Dale ----- "Stéphane Ducasse" <[hidden email]> wrote: | Still still still you can always have a map (a map of all the | components you loaded that they work or not). | This is orthogonal to a release or just publications. This is a | sofware artefact. I know that you know it. | The fact to have map is orthogonal of the choice latest or one | version. | I just write that for others following our discussion.... | | Stef | | | | On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: | | > Hi, | > | > Not every loading strategy have the same goal or the same context. | > | > Sub projects will be developed and published in their own context | > without taking into account the overall project. However, when | > maintaining the overall project, I want to be able to say "load | > latest" so that I can easily load everything and check whether | > everything still holds together. | > | > For overall release management, I do not want to rely on "load | > latest". Instead I will release a coherent version when I see that | it | > works. This will be a fixed set of packages with exact versions that | | > will work together. | > | > Cheers, | > Doru | > | > | > On 3 Dec 2009, at 14:21, Marcus Denker wrote: | > | >> | >> On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Laval Jannik wrote: | >> | >>> Yeh, | >>> | >>> Now, I understand the process... (I am slow :) ) | >>> | >>> But, in this process we must specify versions and maintain it. | >>> Is there a solution (in monticello maybe) to say a version of a | >>> package is stable. | >>> So in this case, we can say "I want last stable version of my | >>> package" and we do not need to maintain ConfigurationOf. | >>> | >> | >> The problem is that it's not one package... your system will be 20 | | >> packges. You can say " load the latest of all, that works". | >> But: now I want to load the version that worked so great last | month. | >> Which set of packages exactly where that? | >> | >> Tagging single packages as "release" will not help, as you don't | >> have the info which released package works with which other | >> released package. | >> | >> | >> Marcus | >> _______________________________________________ | >> Moose-dev mailing list | >> [hidden email] | >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev | > | > -- | > www.tudorgirba.com | > | > "Obvious things are difficult to teach." | > | > | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Pharo-project mailing list | > [hidden email] | > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project | | | _______________________________________________ | Pharo-project mailing list | [hidden email] | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |