Hi Dale, 2016-11-08 2:03 GMT+01:00 Dale Henrichs <dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com>:
> [ snip ... ] > > yes I think this is the area where a Metallo Project Browser comes into > play. The technology for committing the dirty packages in a a > ConfigurationOf has been around for quite awhile, but a tool that unifies > the "multi-package" commit for ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf hasn't popped > out of the wood work ... > I'm having some issues with the scripting approach of Metacello, for that. Just manipulating a baseline in the Metacello registry (locking it) seems to be like writing a compiler code generation item: write a Metacello script ;) (Metacello>>#lock contains interesting code). > > > What is a bit annoying, really, is this talk of rewriting everything where > some of the pieces (the project browsing you're talkin about, for example) > is already there in the image, just not exposed. > > Well I am annoyed as well .. I would say that perhaps we are in screaming > agreement ... I've said that I don't think it's a lot of work to do the > project-centric tool. but a project-centric tool that encompasses both > ConfigurationOf and BaselineOf will expose the features that "are already > there" > > > I'm trying to code a little something for that... stay tuned for a > screenshot soon. > > Cool:) > And here it is! I'm still fighting with the Metacello lock / unlock thing. [image: Images intégrées 1] If Pharo was more really modular in configurations and baselines, then I would see more things into the registry and I could group packages based on that (instead of having to prepare a ad-hoc classification for my my browser). Thierry > Dale >
