Mariano,
This isn't quite as bad as it sounds ... I suggest that you do load the
baseline version of PharoDev, but in the project references of the
baseline version use #stable or a specific version or #bleedingeEdge as
a last resort.
If a #stable version has been defined for a project, then you should be
getting the 'latest stable version' as the project is updated.
If no #stable version is defined, then you should use a literal version
that is known to work. Use #bleedingEdge if that is the only way to get
a project to load correctly ...
Over time, you'd like to migrate all of the project references to
#stable (in the baseline version) so that you will always be building
hudson with the "latest version".
When you release a one-click or hit another similar milestone where'd
you'd like to record the state of the PharoDov system, then you can snap
off the literal version of PharoDev where you record the literal version
for each of the projects ... recording "in stone" the state of PharoDev...
Dale
On 01/18/2011 12:14 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
> Hi. A trade-off here. Right now, the PharoDev image from Hudson is
> being built using ConfigurationOfPharo project lastestVersion.
> This is more or less good because we have the last version of the
> ConfigurationOfPharo. But at the same time, updating the versions of
> ConfigurationOfPharo is tedious. So, what about loading the baseline
> istead? So that metacello automatically load the latest version of each
> package/project ?
> The good thing is that every change in external configurations/packages
> will be automatically included. But at the same time this is a
> disavtange because we can build crap (someone commits something that
> doesn't work). When updating ConfigurationOfPharo by hand we usually
> test it before....
>
> anyway, isn't this the idea if hudson? if it builds crap, we want to
> know it, as soon as possible. NOBODY should use a Hudson image (as it
> is now) for a stable Pharo1.2 image.
>
> what do you think?
>
> cheers
>
> mariano
Locked
