> It is not so easy. > > A huge project as Pharo would profit to be split in order to manage its parts > correctly. For example, we recently released iceberg 1.3.0. And there were > some problems around and we evaluate the possibility of revert that release > until we fix the problems. At the end, problems were not so important and the > fix was made with a 1.3.1 release and almost immediately an 1.4.0.
This is because you want to see it like that. Now issuing a new version of iceberg would just be integrated a branch into Pharo. So I do not see why you could not commit to a branch and work there for Iceberg. Sorry but I do not buy your argument. Why you want to have all the plugin of the VM at the same place and not the core Pharo tool? The message is clear to me: I will not work on Pharo because I cannot. You will show me how you do that trivially stupid bug fix without several PR AND synchronisation point!!!!!! Because if you do not see that the synchronisation point between a PR in project and a PR in Pharo will kill us. What can I say. Nothing I will shut up but do not ask my support for anything in the future. Sorry to be aggressive but this week I could have fixed several totally totally stupid glitches and I could not You will have to prove me that I'm wrong: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22626/Should-not-hardcode-CmdCommandAborted And at the end, you will win and I will let you play with your process. And I will not work on Pharo. > Now, imagine If iceberg would be integrated in pharo. > > 1. The nature of “iceberg” would be lost in other parts. We cannot talk > anymore of releasing 1.3.1 or whatever, we just release Pharo. No clear way > to know what changed in Iceberg without digging in the full list of changes. > 2. If we need to revert. How do we do it? There is no release so what do we > revert? A commit? How many commits? How do we revert if development tree > continued growing and iceberg commit are now mixed with others? > Of course, we could maintain a branch. But then I'd argüe is more or less the > same as having a separated project. > > Situation is not ideal (even if it is a lot better as before). How better? We cannot fix simple crosscutting things in subparts of Pharo? > But I’m envisioning this solution: add multiple source directories capability. This does not resolve the synchronisation point. And I do not see how it helps other projects like Moose with multiple repo so we lose on two sides. 1 Too complex for Pharo core and 2 not helping projects build out of external projects. I think that we should work on more important things instead of building our own new problems. (cleaning, better tools, Cargo, headless, better VM, Modules?) Merging the Pharo core projects would solved the first (1) problem above. But you are right let us look smart and increase the entropy for the sake of it. It will be without me. I started and I will not read bug entries and PR anymore. If doing nothing is the way to get heard then I will do nothing because I'm hurt each time I want to do something and I have enough. > Then we can have: > > src/kernel > src/system > src/spec > src/iceberg > src/calypso > etc. > > This will not just help to improve modularisation but we’ll gives a “free” > feature : using git subtree to manage those directories. I do not believe you. If that would be so easy why Pablo and Guille would tell me that this is around 8 months of work? Seriously. > For those who do not know: subtree allow us to merge different project trees > into one. But the important part is how it will behave in Pharo (or other > projects adopting it): For Pharo it will be JUST ONE REPOSITORY. So one > single commit will spread to all repositories. > Now, the “price to pay” later is that time to time we need to push subtree > from Pharo to their external projects (but this can be automated easily), and > of course, doing “an iceberg release” means to do a pull subtree from > external repository to Pharo (also very easy). > > Esteban > > Ps: remember: programming is an iterative improving process. “Process" is > part of programming so iterations applies to it too. > > > On 7 Nov 2018, at 07:02, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: > > > > It’s a tricky trade off as Norbert alludes too - in my recent example I > > needed some underlying base pieces in place (for the compiler’s ast) and > > those needed reviewing to then be committed - then there were two parts to > > Calypso that relied on those changes) that also needed reviewing and I > > wasn’t sure if Denis waited for the core approval or loaded up my PR - but > > anyway it took him a bit of time to process that and he came back with some > > better suggestions that I also needed to implement (which I had to find > > time to do as well). > > > > When I noticed that the core Pharo pieces were merged, I then had to chase > > Denis to see if he was now happy and could merge my changes. > > > > I guess it would be helpful if there was a way to easily load up multiple > > project pr’s in one go (like the suggested slice concept) so maintainers > > can easily review. Probably more importantly is an easy way to track the > > status of multiple submissions so you can follow up with relevant people > > and push things along and also ensure things get committed in the right > > order (eg doc the dependency chain a bit better). > > > > For me, after a few days I forgot about my Calypso changes and realised a > > few weeks later (by accident) and so could chase Denis. > > > > I think it’s this latter case that Steph alludes to - you lose interest > > after a few days without some useful prompts and easy status tracking. If > > we can make that easier I think it would help. > > > > Tim > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On 7 Nov 2018, at 05:48, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > >> > >> I get the feeling what is needed is mirroring all dependent repos from > >> the canonical location under http://github.com/pharo-project > >> and a Slice-like tool (probably keeping the name "Slice") which... > >> 1. Pulls all dependent repos to the local machine > >> 2. Simultaneously commits to the local repos with the same commit message > >> 3. Updates a bootstrap-configuration file holding commit-hashes of all > >> the dependencies and commits with same commit message > >> 4. Pushes that bootstrap-configuration file and all changed dependent > >> repos to user's github account > >> 5. Issues a pull request for the bootstrap-configuration file > >> 6. Our CI then builds a test-image by commit-hash direct from each > >> user's repo and if it passes, pulls dependent repo commits under > >> pharo-project > >> 7. CI can then issue PRs to the dependency canonical repos > >> > >> cheers -ben > >> > >>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 02:55, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Calypso is integral part of Pharo as Iceberg. > >>> We started to discuss the problem in the team. Right now this project > >>> spread kills us. > >>> > >>> Stef > >>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:56 AM Stephan Eggermont <step...@stack.nl> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>> In retrospect, I’m wondering if successful projects that have proved > >>>>> integration usefulness should be moved into the core repo? > >>>>> (Iceberg/Calypso?) or are we missing something to help easily track the > >>>>> journey of a multi faceted change (although this sounds overkill?). Or > >>>>> are there sprint days to try and knock these things through easily with > >>>>> everyone on board to do it together? > >>>>> > >>>>> We are sort of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. But certainly > >>>>> we > >>>>> want to endure that progress can be made without losing the will to > >>>>> contribute. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Indeed. Putting things in one repo cannot scale and cannot be a solution > >>>> for something that is neither core pharo nor an application. I encourage > >>>> everyone who wants to get a good description of this problem to read > >>>> > >>>> "Managing Design Data: The Five Dimensions of CAD Frameworks, > >>>> Configuration > >>>> Management, and Product Data Management" by Peter van den Hamer & Kees > >>>> Lepoeter. > >>>> > >>>> With git and github a solution to decouple fast-moving from slow-moving > >>>> projects seems to be indeed to fork and make PRs. > >>>> That only works if the quality of the PRs is high enough and we manage to > >>>> use the feedback from slower-moving projects well. > >>>> > >>>> Earlier, we’ve seen projects like Magma being overwhelmed by the number > >>>> of > >>>> needed changes, and Pier being broken by Pillar not respecting its > >>>> constraints. > >>>> > >>>> With tools like Travis, it is quickly clear if a PR would result in a > >>>> green > >>>> build in the original repo. > >>>> > >>>> With projects where Pharo uses only the core, and applications use more > >>>> than that, the applications still have a dependency problem: if the core > >>>> changes in Pharo influence the other parts, someone needs to do the work > >>>> to > >>>> make those parts work again. With forked repos, that can be a pharo > >>>> maintainer, the project maintainer or the application maintainer. All > >>>> three > >>>> need to be able to make those changes. And they need to be decoupled from > >>>> having to make them immediately. And being able to have the discussion > >>>> about the exact implementation independently from implementing a stop-gap > >>>> solution now is also valuable. > >>>> > >>>> So if Calypso is supposed to be extendable and only the core part is part > >>>> of Pharo, having it as an external project makes sense. With a fork for > >>>> Pharo to move at its own speed. If Iceberg is Pharo-only, just having > >>>> different branches for different Pharo versions, it sounds to me like it > >>>> might be better of in the Pharo project. Tonel is supposed to be > >>>> cross-platform so should be separate. > >>>> > >>>> Is this helpful? > >>>> > >>>> Stephan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > >
