On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Peter Uhnák <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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? > I meant, can a Baseline be stored in / operate from a mcz file, without a Configuration? I thought git made Baselines feasible since git takes care of versioning. cheers -ben > 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 of a ConfigurationOf that is almost always out-of-date.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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
