releasing 4.6
Locked
 
|
Hi,
I would like to release 4.6 soon. It's been too long, and it contains important fixes. After this, we should allocate the effort to improve the packaging and the configurations. Perhaps one idea is to synchronize this re-packaging effort with the move to SmalltalkHub. What do you say? Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Value is always contextual." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
> I would like to release 4.6 soon. It's been too long, and it contains important fixes.
+1 > After this, we should allocate the effort to improve the packaging and the configurations. Perhaps one idea is to synchronize this re-packaging effort with the move to SmalltalkHub. I haven't closely look at SmalltalkHub. But will this work with Monticello and Metacello? I guess so, this should not impact the way we work. > What do you say? We definitely need to work on the packaging. This is really frustrating that we are interested in software evolution and we are not able to analyze the evolution of Moose. I think we should do a complete reshape of the all the configuration used in Moose. We should start a new version of Moose incrementally, by adding packages, step by step. We should organize a workshop only on this task. End of January is feasible for me. Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > I would like to release 4.6 soon. It's been too long, and it contains important fixes. > > +1 > > > After this, we should allocate the effort to improve the packaging and the configurations. Perhaps one idea is to synchronize this re-packaging effort with the move to SmalltalkHub. > > I haven't closely look at SmalltalkHub. But will this work with Monticello and Metacello? I guess so, this should not impact the way we work. Sure. If you look at a project, you will even see that it has a special section dedicated to Gofer scripts directly on the main webpage. > > What do you say? > > We definitely need to work on the packaging. This is really frustrating that we are interested in software evolution and we are not able to analyze the evolution of Moose. > > I think we should do a complete reshape of the all the configuration used in Moose. > > We should start a new version of Moose incrementally, by adding packages, step by step. We should organize a workshop only on this task. End of January is feasible for me. It's not packages that pose the problem. It's the big picture that is not clearly defined that poses a problem. Because of this, packages are placed in the wrong places, and this to leads unwanted dependency gets, and in the end, configurations get messy and sometimes circular. Please read the message I sent a while ago entitled: "major repackaging planned" Cheers, Doru > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow" _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
>> We should start a new version of Moose incrementally, by adding packages, step by step. We should organize a workshop only on this task. End of January is feasible for me.
> > It's not packages that pose the problem. It's the big picture that is > not clearly defined that poses a problem. Because of this, packages > are placed in the wrong places, and this to leads unwanted dependency > gets, and in the end, configurations get messy and sometimes circular. > > Please read the message I sent a while ago entitled: "major repackaging planned" I read it and I agreed with it. I am all for it. I think that trying to refactor the configuration will not work. Both of us tried with Dale and no much has changed. We should start the configuration and the packaging from scratch by carefully thinking what is really the structure we want to have, as you said. I can could to Europe at the end of January to work on this. Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
sounds good to me
I will spend some time to finish the famix30 deliverables (I feel a bit alone). and after the importer and the MSE -> FM cleaning. Stef On Nov 16, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to release 4.6 soon. It's been too long, and it contains important fixes. > > After this, we should allocate the effort to improve the packaging and the configurations. Perhaps one idea is to synchronize this re-packaging effort with the move to SmalltalkHub. > > What do you say? > > Cheers, > Doru > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Value is always contextual." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
we could do a workshop at Lille. Doru you could come and talked to inria people too :)
Stef On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >>> We should start a new version of Moose incrementally, by adding packages, step by step. We should organize a workshop only on this task. End of January is feasible for me. >> >> It's not packages that pose the problem. It's the big picture that is >> not clearly defined that poses a problem. Because of this, packages >> are placed in the wrong places, and this to leads unwanted dependency >> gets, and in the end, configurations get messy and sometimes circular. >> >> Please read the message I sent a while ago entitled: "major repackaging planned" > > > I read it and I agreed with it. I am all for it. I think that trying to refactor the configuration will not work. Both of us tried with Dale and no much has changed. > > We should start the configuration and the packaging from scratch by carefully thinking what is really the structure we want to have, as you said. > > I can could to Europe at the end of January to work on this. > > Cheers, > Alexandre > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
«
Return to Moose
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |