> I do not think so but if people show me otherwise I could follow that.
Well, in most languages (their package dependencies) one can just specify
name of the project and a version. The location/how to load it is pulled
from a central repository.
So that's why I thought that maybe the MetaRepo could be used in a similar
fashion.
> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of
project specification objects
That also seems needlessly complex; basically just ConfigurationOf
separated to parts. I do not want to restrict the users, but with a central
repo the most common use case shouldn't be 10 lines of configuration.
> Does BaselineOf work with Monticello?
> I thought it was only for use with git.
Monticello or Metacello?
You can download/install projects just fine (and also depend on other
baselines from your baselines or configurations)
Metacello new
baseline: 'FileDialog';
repository: 'github://peteruhnak/file-dialog/repository';
load.
Also BaselineOf is just a subclass of ConfigurationOf.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Dale Henrichs <
dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
> Very good to hear ... I have to try to be a bit more patient :)
>
>
>
> On 2/12/17 9:37 AM, stepharong wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 16:36:42 +0100, Dale Henrichs <
>> dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:
>>
>> Peter,
>>>
>>> <wishful thinking>
>>>
>>> In the long term the the MetaRepo should be replaced by a repository of
>>> project specification objects (like this [1]). Each project specification
>>> would contain the meta data for a project (like this[2]) instead of a copy
>>> of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always out-of-date.
>>>
>>
>> Yes we are working on it.
>> Now 64bits, FFI, Iceberg, bootstrap got our attention.
>>
>>>
>>> ConfigurationOf should really be phased out -- they've been obsolete for
>>> 3-4 years now... BaselineOf is preferred.
>>>
>>> If folks are using something like git/github, with proper branching,
>>> then a BaselineOf wouldn't be published on the master branch until the unit
>>> tests are passing (travis-ci).
>>>
>>
>> I want more than just the tests but this is a start.
>>
>>>
>>> </wishful thinking>
>>>
>>
>> We will arrive there. Because I want it too.
>> Now pavel worked on the bootstrap to avoid to lose all the energy that
>> guille put on it.
>>
>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/tree/gh-pages
>>> [2] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home/blob/gh-pages/Seas
>>> ide3.ston
>>> On 2/12/17 4:03 AM, Peter Uhnak wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> would it make sense to take configurations from metarepos instead
>>>> directly from the source?
>>>>
>>>> And more imporantly: would be considered bad practice for users to do
>>>> it right now?
>>>>
>>>> E.g.
>>>>
>>>> spec
>>>> project: 'Magritte'
>>>> with: [ spec
>>>> className: #ConfigurationOfMagritte3;
>>>> versionString: #stable;
>>>> repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Ph
>>>> aro/MetaRepoForPharo50/main/' ].
>>>>
>>>> v. repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Magritte/Magritte3/main/'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> pros:
>>>> * the (e.g. Magritte) developer can freely change platforms
>>>> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions
>>>> (combined with git it could reduce their complexity)
>>>> * users do not have to think about where is the canonical repo (I've
>>>> seen project that had copies on SS, STHub, GitHub, and a custom location
>>>> -_-)
>>>>
>>>> cons:
>>>> * the ConfigurationOf could differ between various MetaRepo versions
>>>> (if the code is compatible, then two repos have to be updated
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
