El dom, 16-05-2010 a las 17:28 +0200, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió:
> Hi folks. We have been discussing a lot what to do with the Metacello
> configurations of all projects and MetacelloRepository.
> We want several things:
>
> - Have an specific catalog of the working and tested packages/projects
> for each Pharo release (1.0, 1.1, etc).
> - Be able to have a hudson server running and testing such
> configurations.
> - Unified way to load a project.
>
> For such objectives, we propose the following scheme:
>
> 1) We create a squeaksource repository called
> Pharo10MetacelloRepository
> 2) All the Metacello configurations that are known and tested to work
> perfect in Pharo1.0, are copied to such repository. (this takes 2
> minutes)
> 3) Now, we have the problem of WHICH version from the conf class
> should be the one that loads and works in Pharo 1.0. So, once you
> copied the configuration, then you have to implement a class side
> method "load" that loads the exact version that should work in
> Pharo1.0. This version may not be the last. And you already may have
> defined "load" to load the last version. In such case, you can just
> change it for the version in the Pharo10MetacelloRepository.
> Otherwise, we can use another message. Give us your opinion.
>
> So the idea is that all developers/maintainers of Metacello
> configurations, do that and publish it. With this, if you want to know
> which projects work on Pharo 1.0 you just browser
> Pharo10MetacelloRepository, load the repository you want, and you know
> that just doing "ConfigurationOfXXX" load will do the job.
>
> In addition to this, we are able to have a hudson server that every XX
> time, it scans the repository, and for each project it tries to load
> it and report if there is a problem. We can even make that "load"
> loads also the tests and make Hudson to run the tests. Or if you want
> we can use another message than load.
>
> So...this is just an idea. But we need feedback and hear opinions.
> Because Pharo 1.1 will be soon and would be great to have this already
> working for Pharo 1.0.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mariano
I was thinking about the "folders" to store copies of ConfigurationOfXXX
for a given release. I think that this will have problems, for example
for the simplest package that load fine in 3 consecutive release we will
have exactly 3 copies of the ConfigurationOfXXX package (not that the
disk space is a problem). On the other side, if a package has 19
versions for a given release (lets say RFB has 19 version methods in the
ConfigurationOfXXX for Pharo 1.0), then when Pharo 2.0 is released, a
copy of it will be made. This copy will be full, having the 19 version
methods, or you just take the last version method. Also, what about the
pre/post do its, they will likely be similar or exactly equal between
releases of Pharo.
If you delete the methods, you also lost the history and the opportunity
that new users can learn or use the previous versions.
Some time ago I proposed the idea that Metacello should have tags to
mark that a version method has been tested in a given fork/release. As
the time pass, the tags in a method will grow to mark the version has
been tested on.
But for this to work, Metacello or the tools (I would prefer Metacello)
must honor this tags and before loading the code in a given image by
comparing what image is being installed on.
Lets put an example:
1. Initial creation of the configuration for package Package for Pharo
1.0 uploaded to MetacelloRepository:
ConfigurationOfPackage>>baseline01
"initial baseline"
ConfigurationOfPackage>>version01: spec
<version: '0.1'>
spec for: #common do: [
spec blessing: #release.
spec worksIn: 'Pharo1.0'
... ].
2. A new version for Pharo 1.0 (lets say a bug fix):
ConfigurationOfPackage>>version02: spec
<version: '0.2'>
spec for: #common do: [
spec blessing: #release.
spec worksIn: 'Pharo1.0'
... ].
3. A new Pharo release is made, no changes to the package are needed,
that is, it works correctly in Pharo1.0 and Pharo 1.1
ConfigurationOfPackage>>version03: spec
<version: '0.3'>
spec for: #common do: [
spec blessing: #release.
spec worksIn: #( 'Pharo1.0' 'Pharo1.1' )
... ].
At this point the ConfigurationOfPackage has four methods: baseline and
three versions. Also, before loading, Metacello checks the worksIn:
list against a standard release string in the image is working on. If
it match it install the package. That is, if I start with a Pharo1.1
image and load the configuration, the only possible candidate version
to install is the 0.3, because is the only one marked to work in Pharo1.1.
4. A port to Squeak 5 is made. This likely will need a new baseline
because will need squeak specific packages to be included
(compatibility packages) and also maybe a Pharo compatibility package
will be made. Anyway, a new baseline indicating new packages
relationships will be made:
ConfigurationOfPackage>>baseline02
"second baseline, it accounts for install in Pharo and Squeak"
ConfigurationOfPackage>>version04: spec
<version: '0.4'>
spec for: #common do: [
spec blessing: #release.
spec worksIn: #( 'Pharo1.0' 'Pharo1.1' 'Squeak5.0' )
... ].
spec for: #squeak do: [
... ].
spec for: #pharo do: [
... ].
At this point the ConfigurationOfXXX is capable of install the last
version in Squeak and Pharo.
If I start on Squeak 4.0 then even if I load the
ConfigurationOfPackage, no package will be installed because nobody has tested
this.
If I start on Squeak 5.0 only version 0.4 can be installed.
If I start on Pharo 1.0 versions 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 can be installed
If I start on Pharo 1.3 no package will be installed
5. Nobody updates the configuration for the Squeak 6.0 and 7.0 releases
but new versions are created for Pharo 1.3 and Pharo1.4. The code no longer
works in Pharo 1.0 and Pharo1.1
ConfigurationOfPackage>>baseline08
"second baseline, it accounts for install in Pharo and Squeak"
ConfigurationOfPackage>>version09: spec
<version: '0.9'>
spec for: #common do: [
spec blessing: #release.
spec worksIn: #( 'Pharo1.3' 'Pharo1.4' )
... ].
spec for: #pharo do: [
... ].
6. Installing on Squeak 8 is again supported together with support for Squeak
7.0:
ConfigurationOfPackage>>baseline04
"third baseline, it accounts for install in Pharo and Squeak"
ConfigurationOfPackage>>version10: spec
<version: '1.0'>
spec for: #common do: [
spec blessing: #release.
spec worksIn: #( 'Pharo1.3' 'Pharo1.4' 'Squeak7.0' 'Squeak8.0' )
... ].
spec for: #squeak do: [
... ].
spec for: #pharo do: [
... ].
So the tags come and go as the support for given forks and releases are
tested.
Different versions of the Package package can work in different forks
and in different releases of those forks.
It is always the job of the interested parties to add support (that is
version methods and baselines, or simply tags to the worksIn: list) for
a package in a given combination.
What do you think?
Cheers
--
Miguel Cobá
http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
