What I meant is that I have a readme, e.g. https://github.com/OpenPonk/xmi , which contains
* Pharo code examples * images * References to Pharo code (class names, etc.) But if the code changes (renames, API changes, different UI), I have to manually update the README. There is also no way for me to validate the examples, etc and see if anything is broken. Peter On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 06:58:50PM +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote: > Let us rephrase it: > > - I would like to have a mini pillar with a simplified model and visitor > to display class comments. > > - then think about Pharo 70 as the core and birth of a new generation of > imageS > > I will restart to revisit Pillar once I'm done with the Lecture at Prague. > > Stef > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Peter Uhnak <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to propose including Pillar in the Pharo image by default. > > > > My reasoning: > > > > Since we are moving to git, and most people will use github, gitlab, and > > the likes, it is expected to include a README.md file (or possibly more > > extensive documentation) alongside the code. > > > > Which means that people will (and are) writing the README mostly by hand, > > which of course is problematic, as e.g. code snippets can get deprecated, > > screenshots become outdated, etc. > > > > As Pillar tries to address these problems, it would make sense to me to > > include Pillar in the image by default, as anyone using git (which > > eventually should be everyone) will most likely benefit from writing their > > documentation in Pillar. > > Similarly using Pillar would open an avenue to provide the documentation > > in-image, e.g. one exporter for html/markdown, and another one for Pharo's > > Help system. > > > > I could, of course, install Pillar every time, but considering thats extra > > effort and in the extra time I can fix the issues by hand, I don't have > > such an incentive to use Pillar for this. > > > > Questions & Problems: > > > > I don't know by how much would pillar increase the image size. Perhaps > > there could be (a) "lightweight Pillar" (that would include just pillar & > > markdown exporter), or (b) we would have different images for different > > uses. > > > > By different images I mean something along the lines of > > a) developer image - meant to be directly used by developers to create > > their software > > b) production image - as a foundation for running systems / users > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > Peter > > >
