On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Indeed, we would like to encourage the packaging of GT extensions in the
> same project as the code they extend. So, in this case,
> GT-InspectorExtensions-XML would be better suited to be in the
> PharoExtras/XMLParser
> repository under XML-
Hi,
Sorry for the slow reaction.
Indeed, we would like to encourage the packaging of GT extensions in the
same project as the code they extend. So, in this case,
GT-InspectorExtensions-XML would be better suited to be in the
PharoExtras/XMLParser
repository under XML-Parser-GT-InspectorExtensions
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:28 AM, stepharo wrote:
> Hi ben
>
> we could update the configurationOfXMLReader.
> But the right solution is to define a new configuration loading GT-Tools,
> XMLReader and your extensions.
> In pharo 40 we could consider that GT-Tools is loaded.
> Now I think that maki
Hi ben
we could update the configurationOfXMLReader.
But the right solution is to define a new configuration loading
GT-Tools, XMLReader and your extensions.
In pharo 40 we could consider that GT-Tools is loaded.
Now I think that making the dependencies explicit is important.
So what do you t
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There already exists a GT-InspectorExtensions-XML which is already
> published in the GT repository.
>
Cool. I'll revert my changes. However its not very discoverable that
people need to check that repository for any particular appli
Hi,
There already exists a GT-InspectorExtensions-XML which is already
published in the GT repository.
I would prefer to qualify the extensions by the tool they refer to:
GT-InspectorExtnesions-*, GT-SpotterExtensions-* etc.
gtDisplayOn: should be more in the inspector, but probably some were ad
