State of 3.1 Configuration?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

State of 3.1 Configuration?

Philippe Marschall
Hi

What's the state of the 3.1 configuration? Are there still any show
stoppers? I don't want go get anybody's hopes to high but I may have
time to work on a release next week.

Cheers
Philippe
_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of 3.1 Configuration?

Johan Brichau-2
Hi Philippe,

I should check for the gemstone version and include it in the configuration.
Apart from that, it should be set to go, afaik.

Johan

On 11 Dec 2013, at 17:27, Philippe Marschall <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> What's the state of the 3.1 configuration? Are there still any show
> stoppers? I don't want go get anybody's hopes to high but I may have
> time to work on a release next week.
>
> Cheers
> Philippe
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of 3.1 Configuration?

Stephan Eggermont-3
In reply to this post by Philippe Marschall
For Pharo 3 we need a solution for GRPackage>>packages

I didn't get an answer to my earlier mail. I assume that means we can rename it to
GRPackage>>greasePackages?

Stephan_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of 3.1 Configuration?

Johan Brichau-2
I think the rename makes sense. It returns GRPackage instances anyway.

GRPackage>>grPackages

Trying it out and will commit if the tests are green.

On 12 Dec 2013, at 14:25, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For Pharo 3 we need a solution for GRPackage>>packages
>
> I didn't get an answer to my earlier mail. I assume that means we can rename it to
> GRPackage>>greasePackages?
>
> Stephan_______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of 3.1 Configuration?

Johan Brichau-2
I went ahead and did this.
Bumped Seaside 3.1.0 to use Grease 1.1.4 (which has the rename)

On 15 Dec 2013, at 18:26, Johan Brichau <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think the rename makes sense. It returns GRPackage instances anyway.
>
> GRPackage>>grPackages
>
> Trying it out and will commit if the tests are green.
>
> On 12 Dec 2013, at 14:25, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> For Pharo 3 we need a solution for GRPackage>>packages
>>
>> I didn't get an answer to my earlier mail. I assume that means we can rename it to
>> GRPackage>>greasePackages?
>>
>> Stephan_______________________________________________
>> seaside-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>

_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev