Le 22/04/2015 10:21, Andrei Chis a écrit :
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com
<mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
in fact I just checked and Versioner already does that: right button
on monticello over a configuration gives you a: “create
development/release version”.
So only thing we need is to use the tools we already created :)
But this only works for releasing simple configurations that do not
depend on other configurations.
This would work for rubric, for example, but not for other
configurations we have in gtools.
I believe GTTools is certainly a poster case for trying to make that
process simpler.
I would really be interested to see how a combination of simpler
configurations, baselines, tags and branches would look. A kind of
hierarchical modeling where you only have configurations at the moment.
Thierry
Cheers,
Andrei
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 08:50, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com
<mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> and btw… of course I agree repositories need to be added, and
configurations kept in image.
>
> cheers,
> Esteban
>
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 08:34, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com
<mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree with your proposal.
>> It will be a mess, nobody will merge (because there will be no
point on doing it) and we will not move out from a monolithic system.
>> What I propose is not an invention, is how big projects work…
what you have to take into account is that any project under the
Pharo umbrella does not have an owner, but a maintainer. That means
if Alan is on vacation or he does not has the time to do the new
configuration, anyone can doit.
>>
>> Yes, it can look slow, but that is because you are too used to
the old workflow, and because right now system is not modular.
>> The method I propose will enhance modularity (while the older
will, at least, not help), which means with time, changes will be
applied just in one module and not along the full system like now.
>>
>> Of course with proper tools this will be faster, but I very much
prefer people telling me “I need this” (that’s why I did the
integrator app, and modified the monkey to take and validate
configurations), and we do it, that we abandon our pursuit of
modularity because is uncomfortable at the beginning.
>>
>> We can modify also monticello or versioner (better monticello
because everything will be closer, but using versioner API) to do a
“save new version” which would be more or less the same as a slice,
but for a configuration, and it will:
>>
>> - save the packages associated to the configuration
>> - create a new version
>> - save the new configuration
>>
>> this will not be to much work (I think I can have it in a couple
of days), it will help the process (because eventually everything
should be managed through configurations (or PPM configurations),
and it will allow us to keep a process that is better and validated..
>>
>> TL;DR: Better enhance the tools than drop the process.
>>
>> Esteban
>>
>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 07:47, stepharo <steph...@free.fr
<mailto:steph...@free.fr>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Esteban
>>> I was thinking about the following this night.
>>>
>>> While I understand that we want configuration only it will slow
us down like hell.
>>>
>>> Example
>>> with guille we wanted to fix a problem (I do not remember which
one)
>>> we need a change to be done in rubric so we will have to
publish the change in rubric repo
>>> - (find it and add it) so the rubric repo should be there before
>>> - then one guy of rubric should have a look
>>> - then merge
>>> - then publish an issue with a configuration
>>> - then only then we can work
>>> => result why do we need sync for me and guille to continue to
work???
>>> => what if Alain in on vacation?
>>> we stop working?
>>> => Remember: We did Pharo especially because people in squeak
did not want that we change
>>> packages.
>>>
>>> Alternate process
>>> - we do a fix we publish it in Pharo and yes this touches
Rubric and
>>> - we integrate it in Pharo head
>>> - then the guy from rubric merge in their trunk when they want.
>>> it should be part of the their process to merge always
with pharo trunk
>>> - At that point they can report a problem
>>> - then they produce at their speed a new configuration
>>> - then we integrate when ready their change
>>>
>>>
>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>
>
