andrei
You talk about releasing.
I talk about changes that should be done on a system while people are
not active.
Stef
Le 22/4/15 15:29, Andrei Chis a écrit :
In all new tools that we did we tried to have only 2-3 packages and
use tags to organize classes in a packaged (GT-* has 9 packages for 3
projects).
This allows for very simple configurations with clear dependencies.
Glamour has more packages (17) but those should also be reduced, as we
do not need such a low level of granularity.
Given that support for working with multiple nested configuration is
not great we can merge all GT-* projects into one configuration.
I would still like to have different configurations for Glamour and
Rubric as they are separate projects.
So we can have just three configurations (each one for a separate
project that can be released independent of the others):
ConfigurationOfGToolkitCore
----> ConfigurationOfGlamourCore
---------> ConfigurationOfRubric
This would make releasing a new version easier with the current
support from versioner.
Releasing a version for all three configurations at once would still
require some manual updating of versions, but that's a less frequent
use-case.
Cheers,
Andrei
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Esteban Lorenzano
<esteba...@gmail.com <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
exactly.
what we need in the long term is a complete better integration
process.
I dream to have a git pharo project with submodules and pull requests.
Slowly the tools are coming, but this will take time to implement.
In the mean time, we need to do all the steps we can to allow us
to achieve the modularisation goal.
Even if they look not easy because we are still building it, or
too used to previous ways of doing it.
Esteban
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 12:15, Pavel Krivanek
<pavel.kriva...@gmail.com <mailto:pavel.kriva...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> And do not forget that with better Pharo modularization it will
start
> to be a problem on more lower level. When eg. Morphic will be an
> "exteranal" Pharo package.
>
> -- Pavel
>
> 2015-04-22 12:03 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano
<esteba...@gmail.com <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>>:
>>
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 10:21, Andrei Chis
<chisvasileand...@gmail.com <mailto:chisvasileand...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> then you have two options:
>>
>> 1) you rewrite your configurations to not need nested
configurations. This
>> is not recommendable in huge projects like Seaside, but things
like GTools
>> are easily (I did a quick check and your 3 configurations have
in total 7
>> packages… would not be a problem to have them without nesting
projects and
>> just using the packages). In fact, this is how Dale recommends
using
>> configurations (if I understood him right).
>> 2) we enhance the tools to also allow the commit of nested
packages.
>>
>> I think both approaches needs to be done: you don’t need
unnecessary
>> complexity in your configurations and we need to add some
nesting support to
>> commit new version.
>>
>> What is not admisible, IMO, is to do something that is wrong
just because it
>> looks easier in the short term (and I say “in short term”
because what looks
>> easier now will generate a lot of problems in the future).
>>
>> cheers,
>> Esteban
>
