Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
> In Metacello there are more than one way to "visit specs": > > - raw specs > - merged specs > - specs by section > - resolved specs > - there are more > > If you are reasoning about the packages visible for a particular combination > of attributes (#common, #pharo, etc.) then you are interested in the 'merged > specs'. > > If you are interested in looking at the individual statements that are > composed into the merged specs, then you need to look at the raw specs, again > against a particular combination of attributes. > > If you are editting a spec or interested in extracting the list of all > packages referenced independent of attribute, then you need to look at the > specs by section ... in which case you have the choice of looking at the raw > specs or merged specs for each section visited. You also probably need to > control whether or not imports are followed or not. > > If you are interested in knowing the exact package version and repository > that a spec resolves to, then you need to look at resolved specs against a > particular combination of attributes. > > So I guess I need to know a little bit more about what you are thinking when > you say "visitor on metacello spec." > > Dale I see. But when I close my eyes and think about the metacello domain. I see trees of projects baseline, versions packages required packages the fact that the information is merged, resolved…. should give back trees and I would like to be able to visit these structures so that we can build analysis such as snapcello on top. So probably that a visitor would have to be attached a strategy while navigating. Stef
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
Stef, In Metacello there are more than one way to "visit specs": - raw specs - merged specs - specs by section - resolved specs - there are more If you are reasoning about the packages visible for a particular combination of attributes (#common, #pharo, etc.) then you are interested in the 'merged specs'. If you are interested in looking at the individual statements that are composed into the merged specs, then you need to look at the raw specs, again against a particular combination of attributes. If you are editting a spec or interested in extracting the list of all packages referenced independent of attribute, then you need to look at the specs by section ... in which case you have the choice of looking at the raw specs or merged specs for each section visited. You also probably need to control whether or not imports are followed or not. If you are interested in knowing the exact package version and repository that a spec resolves to, then you need to look at resolved specs against a particular combination of attributes. So I guess I need to know a little bit more about what you are thinking when you say "visitor on metacello spec." Dale - Original Message - | From: "Stéphane Ducasse" | To: "Pharo Development List" | Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:47:51 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re:[ann] snapshotcello | | Hi dale | | do you plan to write a visitor on metacello spec? | | Stef | | On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Dale K. Henrichs | wrote: | | > Doru, | > | > Are you going to be at ESUG this year? | > | > I think there are some features of the Metacello Preview that can | > be of a great help to your Moose development and I think you and I | > need to spend time discussing the ins and outs in detail ... | > | > I have also done a fair amount or work writing tools for tODE that | > manipulate sets of configurations using the MetacelloToolBox | > (Metacello Preview version), so perhaps your goal of "automatic | > transitive versioning of all nested configurations" is not as far | > away as you think. And again, I think some deep discussions at a | > whiteboard and some pair programming is probably the most | > efficient... | > | > Dale | > | > - Original Message - | > | From: "Tudor Girba" | > | To: "Pharo Development List" | > | Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:24:20 AM | > | Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] | > | snapshotcello | > | | > | Hi, | > | | > | On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Johan Brichau | > | wrote: | > | | > | > Doru, | > | > | > | > What do you understand with 'levels'? Is it referenced | > | > projects? | > | | > | Yes. Nested projects, each being under development :) | > | | > | > Perhaps this is the difference I did not immediately extract | > | > from | > | > your description. Re-reading it with this focus makes the | > | > difference clear I think. | > | > | > | > My use of the toolbox is indeed to generate or update a version | > | > for | > | > a single project where all 'nested' projects are referenced by | > | > project version. As I understand it, the snapshot version is a | > | > 'flattened' version containing all packages? | > | | > | Yes. | > | | > | My end goal would be to be able to create automatic transitive | > | versioning of all nested configurations, but this requires some | > | more | > | work, and likely some extension at the level of Metacello. So, | > | until | > | this happens, we now have the option of snapshotting all | > | packages. | > | | > | The cool thing is that if you have something like: | > | ConfigurationOfMoose depends on ConfigurationOfGlamour | > | | > | then in the list of snapshotted packages, you will also get the | > | version of ConfigurationOfGlamour. Thus, essentially, you obtain | > | the | > | same thing as if you would load nested configurations. | > | | > | The only problem is that because we lose configuration nesting | > | information, Metacello is unable to resolve possible diamond | > | conflicts. For example, suppose you have a project that depends | > | on a | > | certain version X of Glamour, but also would like to load the | > | whole | > | Moose that loads version Y of Glamour. If you use normal | > | configurations, Metacello should be able to detect the conflict, | > | but | > | if you only have flattened versions, you will likely not detect | > | the | > | conflict so easily. In any case, I think this is acceptable at | > | the | > | moment. | > | | > | Cheers, | > | Doru | > | |
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
That's going to make working out Metacello details a bit difficult:( Dale - Original Message - | From: "Tudor Girba" | To: "Pharo Development List" | Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:08:30 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] | snapshotcello | Unfortunately, I will not be able to join :( | Doru | On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Dale K. Henrichs < | dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com > wrote: | | Doru, | | | Are you going to be at ESUG this year? | | | I think there are some features of the Metacello Preview that can | | be | | of a great help to your Moose development and I think you and I | | need | | to spend time discussing the ins and outs in detail ... | | | I have also done a fair amount or work writing tools for tODE that | | manipulate sets of configurations using the MetacelloToolBox | | (Metacello Preview version), so perhaps your goal of "automatic | | transitive versioning of all nested configurations" is not as far | | away as you think. And again, I think some deep discussions at a | | whiteboard and some pair programming is probably the most | | efficient... | | | Dale | | | - Original Message - | | | | From: "Tudor Girba" < tu...@tudorgirba.com > | | | | To: "Pharo Development List" < pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org > | | | | Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:24:20 AM | | | | Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] | | | snapshotcello | | | | | | | | Hi, | | | | | | | | On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Johan Brichau < jo...@inceptive.be > | | | | wrote: | | | | | | | | > Doru, | | | | > | | | | > What do you understand with 'levels'? Is it referenced | | | > projects? | | | | | | | | Yes. Nested projects, each being under development :) | | | | | | | | > Perhaps this is the difference I did not immediately extract | | | > from | | | | > your description. Re-reading it with this focus makes the | | | | > difference clear I think. | | | | > | | | | > My use of the toolbox is indeed to generate or update a version | | | > for | | | | > a single project where all 'nested' projects are referenced by | | | | > project version. As I understand it, the snapshot version is a | | | | > 'flattened' version containing all packages? | | | | | | | | Yes. | | | | | | | | My end goal would be to be able to create automatic transitive | | | | versioning of all nested configurations, but this requires some | | | more | | | | work, and likely some extension at the level of Metacello. So, | | | until | | | | this happens, we now have the option of snapshotting all | | | packages. | | | | | | | | The cool thing is that if you have something like: | | | | ConfigurationOfMoose depends on ConfigurationOfGlamour | | | | | | | | then in the list of snapshotted packages, you will also get the | | | | version of ConfigurationOfGlamour. Thus, essentially, you obtain | | | the | | | | same thing as if you would load nested configurations. | | | | | | | | The only problem is that because we lose configuration nesting | | | | information, Metacello is unable to resolve possible diamond | | | | conflicts. For example, suppose you have a project that depends | | | on | | | a | | | | certain version X of Glamour, but also would like to load the | | | whole | | | | Moose that loads version Y of Glamour. If you use normal | | | | configurations, Metacello should be able to detect the conflict, | | | but | | | | if you only have flattened versions, you will likely not detect | | | the | | | | conflict so easily. In any case, I think this is acceptable at | | | the | | | | moment. | | | | | | | | Cheers, | | | | Doru | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > I think I get it now. thanks | | | | > | | | | > Johan | | | | > | | | | > On 24 Jul 2013, at 12:45, Tudor Girba < tu...@tudorgirba.com > | | | > wrote: | | | | > | | | | >> Perhaps I missed something in the toolbox, but as far as I | | | >> know | | | | >> you cannot create a version of a configuration that is | | | >> composed | | | | >> of multiple sub-projects nested multiple levels deep. | | | | >> | | | | >> Could you describe the way you are using the Metacello | | | >> Toolbox? | | | | >> | | | | >> Doru | | | | >> | | | | >> | | | | >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Johan Brichau | | | | >> < jo...@inceptive.be > wrote: | | | | >> Hi Doru, Stef, | | | | >> | | | | >> May I ask what the difference is with the version generation | | | >> and | | | | >> updating methods found in MetacelloToolbox ? I want to | | | | >> understand, because I am currently using these of | | | | >> MetacelloToolbo
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
This would be so cool :). Doru On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > Hi dale > > do you plan to write a visitor on metacello spec? > > Stef > > On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Dale K. Henrichs < > dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > > > Doru, > > > > Are you going to be at ESUG this year? > > > > I think there are some features of the Metacello Preview that can be of > a great help to your Moose development and I think you and I need to spend > time discussing the ins and outs in detail ... > > > > I have also done a fair amount or work writing tools for tODE that > manipulate sets of configurations using the MetacelloToolBox (Metacello > Preview version), so perhaps your goal of "automatic transitive versioning > of all nested configurations" is not as far away as you think. And again, I > think some deep discussions at a whiteboard and some pair programming is > probably the most efficient... > > > > Dale > > > > - Original Message - > > | From: "Tudor Girba" > > | To: "Pharo Development List" > > | Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:24:20 AM > > | Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] > snapshotcello > > | > > | Hi, > > | > > | On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Johan Brichau > > | wrote: > > | > > | > Doru, > > | > > > | > What do you understand with 'levels'? Is it referenced projects? > > | > > | Yes. Nested projects, each being under development :) > > | > > | > Perhaps this is the difference I did not immediately extract from > > | > your description. Re-reading it with this focus makes the > > | > difference clear I think. > > | > > > | > My use of the toolbox is indeed to generate or update a version for > > | > a single project where all 'nested' projects are referenced by > > | > project version. As I understand it, the snapshot version is a > > | > 'flattened' version containing all packages? > > | > > | Yes. > > | > > | My end goal would be to be able to create automatic transitive > > | versioning of all nested configurations, but this requires some more > > | work, and likely some extension at the level of Metacello. So, until > > | this happens, we now have the option of snapshotting all packages. > > | > > | The cool thing is that if you have something like: > > | ConfigurationOfMoose depends on ConfigurationOfGlamour > > | > > | then in the list of snapshotted packages, you will also get the > > | version of ConfigurationOfGlamour. Thus, essentially, you obtain the > > | same thing as if you would load nested configurations. > > | > > | The only problem is that because we lose configuration nesting > > | information, Metacello is unable to resolve possible diamond > > | conflicts. For example, suppose you have a project that depends on a > > | certain version X of Glamour, but also would like to load the whole > > | Moose that loads version Y of Glamour. If you use normal > > | configurations, Metacello should be able to detect the conflict, but > > | if you only have flattened versions, you will likely not detect the > > | conflict so easily. In any case, I think this is acceptable at the > > | moment. > > | > > | Cheers, > > | Doru > > | > > | > > | > > | > I think I get it now. thanks > > | > > > | > Johan > > | > > > | > On 24 Jul 2013, at 12:45, Tudor Girba wrote: > > | > > > | >> Perhaps I missed something in the toolbox, but as far as I know > > | >> you cannot create a version of a configuration that is composed > > | >> of multiple sub-projects nested multiple levels deep. > > | >> > > | >> Could you describe the way you are using the Metacello Toolbox? > > | >> > > | >> Doru > > | >> > > | >> > > | >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Johan Brichau > > | >> wrote: > > | >> Hi Doru, Stef, > > | >> > > | >> May I ask what the difference is with the version generation and > > | >> updating methods found in MetacelloToolbox ? I want to > > | >> understand, because I am currently using these of > > | >> MetacelloToolbox to do the things you describe. > > | >> > > | >> Cheers! > > | >> Johan > > | >> > > | >> On 24 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Stéphane Ducasse > > | >> wrot
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
Unfortunately, I will not be able to join :( Doru On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Dale K. Henrichs < dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > Doru, > > Are you going to be at ESUG this year? > > I think there are some features of the Metacello Preview that can be of a > great help to your Moose development and I think you and I need to spend > time discussing the ins and outs in detail ... > > I have also done a fair amount or work writing tools for tODE that > manipulate sets of configurations using the MetacelloToolBox (Metacello > Preview version), so perhaps your goal of "automatic transitive versioning > of all nested configurations" is not as far away as you think. And again, I > think some deep discussions at a whiteboard and some pair programming is > probably the most efficient... > > Dale > > - Original Message - > | From: "Tudor Girba" > | To: "Pharo Development List" > | Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:24:20 AM > | Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] > snapshotcello > | > | Hi, > | > | On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Johan Brichau > | wrote: > | > | > Doru, > | > > | > What do you understand with 'levels'? Is it referenced projects? > | > | Yes. Nested projects, each being under development :) > | > | > Perhaps this is the difference I did not immediately extract from > | > your description. Re-reading it with this focus makes the > | > difference clear I think. > | > > | > My use of the toolbox is indeed to generate or update a version for > | > a single project where all 'nested' projects are referenced by > | > project version. As I understand it, the snapshot version is a > | > 'flattened' version containing all packages? > | > | Yes. > | > | My end goal would be to be able to create automatic transitive > | versioning of all nested configurations, but this requires some more > | work, and likely some extension at the level of Metacello. So, until > | this happens, we now have the option of snapshotting all packages. > | > | The cool thing is that if you have something like: > | ConfigurationOfMoose depends on ConfigurationOfGlamour > | > | then in the list of snapshotted packages, you will also get the > | version of ConfigurationOfGlamour. Thus, essentially, you obtain the > | same thing as if you would load nested configurations. > | > | The only problem is that because we lose configuration nesting > | information, Metacello is unable to resolve possible diamond > | conflicts. For example, suppose you have a project that depends on a > | certain version X of Glamour, but also would like to load the whole > | Moose that loads version Y of Glamour. If you use normal > | configurations, Metacello should be able to detect the conflict, but > | if you only have flattened versions, you will likely not detect the > | conflict so easily. In any case, I think this is acceptable at the > | moment. > | > | Cheers, > | Doru > | > | > | > | > I think I get it now. thanks > | > > | > Johan > | > > | > On 24 Jul 2013, at 12:45, Tudor Girba wrote: > | > > | >> Perhaps I missed something in the toolbox, but as far as I know > | >> you cannot create a version of a configuration that is composed > | >> of multiple sub-projects nested multiple levels deep. > | >> > | >> Could you describe the way you are using the Metacello Toolbox? > | >> > | >> Doru > | >> > | >> > | >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Johan Brichau > | >> wrote: > | >> Hi Doru, Stef, > | >> > | >> May I ask what the difference is with the version generation and > | >> updating methods found in MetacelloToolbox ? I want to > | >> understand, because I am currently using these of > | >> MetacelloToolbox to do the things you describe. > | >> > | >> Cheers! > | >> Johan > | >> > | >> On 24 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Stéphane Ducasse > | >> wrote: > | >> > | >>> > | >>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Tudor Girba > | >>> wrote: > | >>> > | >>>> Hi, > | >>>> > | >>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Stéphane Ducasse > | >>>> wrote: > | >>>> > | >>>>> > | >>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Dale K. Henrichs > | >>>>> wrote: > | >>>>> > | >>>>>> Stef, > | >>>>>> > | >>>>>> I haven't com
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
Hi dale do you plan to write a visitor on metacello spec? Stef On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Dale K. Henrichs wrote: > Doru, > > Are you going to be at ESUG this year? > > I think there are some features of the Metacello Preview that can be of a > great help to your Moose development and I think you and I need to spend time > discussing the ins and outs in detail ... > > I have also done a fair amount or work writing tools for tODE that manipulate > sets of configurations using the MetacelloToolBox (Metacello Preview > version), so perhaps your goal of "automatic transitive versioning of all > nested configurations" is not as far away as you think. And again, I think > some deep discussions at a whiteboard and some pair programming is probably > the most efficient... > > Dale > > - Original Message - > | From: "Tudor Girba" > | To: "Pharo Development List" > | Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:24:20 AM > | Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] > snapshotcello > | > | Hi, > | > | On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Johan Brichau > | wrote: > | > | > Doru, > | > > | > What do you understand with 'levels'? Is it referenced projects? > | > | Yes. Nested projects, each being under development :) > | > | > Perhaps this is the difference I did not immediately extract from > | > your description. Re-reading it with this focus makes the > | > difference clear I think. > | > > | > My use of the toolbox is indeed to generate or update a version for > | > a single project where all 'nested' projects are referenced by > | > project version. As I understand it, the snapshot version is a > | > 'flattened' version containing all packages? > | > | Yes. > | > | My end goal would be to be able to create automatic transitive > | versioning of all nested configurations, but this requires some more > | work, and likely some extension at the level of Metacello. So, until > | this happens, we now have the option of snapshotting all packages. > | > | The cool thing is that if you have something like: > | ConfigurationOfMoose depends on ConfigurationOfGlamour > | > | then in the list of snapshotted packages, you will also get the > | version of ConfigurationOfGlamour. Thus, essentially, you obtain the > | same thing as if you would load nested configurations. > | > | The only problem is that because we lose configuration nesting > | information, Metacello is unable to resolve possible diamond > | conflicts. For example, suppose you have a project that depends on a > | certain version X of Glamour, but also would like to load the whole > | Moose that loads version Y of Glamour. If you use normal > | configurations, Metacello should be able to detect the conflict, but > | if you only have flattened versions, you will likely not detect the > | conflict so easily. In any case, I think this is acceptable at the > | moment. > | > | Cheers, > | Doru > | > | > | > | > I think I get it now. thanks > | > > | > Johan > | > > | > On 24 Jul 2013, at 12:45, Tudor Girba wrote: > | > > | >> Perhaps I missed something in the toolbox, but as far as I know > | >> you cannot create a version of a configuration that is composed > | >> of multiple sub-projects nested multiple levels deep. > | >> > | >> Could you describe the way you are using the Metacello Toolbox? > | >> > | >> Doru > | >> > | >> > | >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Johan Brichau > | >> wrote: > | >> Hi Doru, Stef, > | >> > | >> May I ask what the difference is with the version generation and > | >> updating methods found in MetacelloToolbox ? I want to > | >> understand, because I am currently using these of > | >> MetacelloToolbox to do the things you describe. > | >> > | >> Cheers! > | >> Johan > | >> > | >> On 24 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Stéphane Ducasse > | >> wrote: > | >> > | >>> > | >>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Tudor Girba > | >>> wrote: > | >>> > | >>>> Hi, > | >>>> > | >>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Stéphane Ducasse > | >>>> wrote: > | >>>> > | >>>>> > | >>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Dale K. Henrichs > | >>>>> wrote: > | >>>>> > | >>>>>> Stef, > | >>>>>> > | >>>
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
Doru, Are you going to be at ESUG this year? I think there are some features of the Metacello Preview that can be of a great help to your Moose development and I think you and I need to spend time discussing the ins and outs in detail ... I have also done a fair amount or work writing tools for tODE that manipulate sets of configurations using the MetacelloToolBox (Metacello Preview version), so perhaps your goal of "automatic transitive versioning of all nested configurations" is not as far away as you think. And again, I think some deep discussions at a whiteboard and some pair programming is probably the most efficient... Dale - Original Message - | From: "Tudor Girba" | To: "Pharo Development List" | Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:24:20 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello | | Hi, | | On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Johan Brichau | wrote: | | > Doru, | > | > What do you understand with 'levels'? Is it referenced projects? | | Yes. Nested projects, each being under development :) | | > Perhaps this is the difference I did not immediately extract from | > your description. Re-reading it with this focus makes the | > difference clear I think. | > | > My use of the toolbox is indeed to generate or update a version for | > a single project where all 'nested' projects are referenced by | > project version. As I understand it, the snapshot version is a | > 'flattened' version containing all packages? | | Yes. | | My end goal would be to be able to create automatic transitive | versioning of all nested configurations, but this requires some more | work, and likely some extension at the level of Metacello. So, until | this happens, we now have the option of snapshotting all packages. | | The cool thing is that if you have something like: | ConfigurationOfMoose depends on ConfigurationOfGlamour | | then in the list of snapshotted packages, you will also get the | version of ConfigurationOfGlamour. Thus, essentially, you obtain the | same thing as if you would load nested configurations. | | The only problem is that because we lose configuration nesting | information, Metacello is unable to resolve possible diamond | conflicts. For example, suppose you have a project that depends on a | certain version X of Glamour, but also would like to load the whole | Moose that loads version Y of Glamour. If you use normal | configurations, Metacello should be able to detect the conflict, but | if you only have flattened versions, you will likely not detect the | conflict so easily. In any case, I think this is acceptable at the | moment. | | Cheers, | Doru | | | | > I think I get it now. thanks | > | > Johan | > | > On 24 Jul 2013, at 12:45, Tudor Girba wrote: | > | >> Perhaps I missed something in the toolbox, but as far as I know | >> you cannot create a version of a configuration that is composed | >> of multiple sub-projects nested multiple levels deep. | >> | >> Could you describe the way you are using the Metacello Toolbox? | >> | >> Doru | >> | >> | >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Johan Brichau | >> wrote: | >> Hi Doru, Stef, | >> | >> May I ask what the difference is with the version generation and | >> updating methods found in MetacelloToolbox ? I want to | >> understand, because I am currently using these of | >> MetacelloToolbox to do the things you describe. | >> | >> Cheers! | >> Johan | >> | >> On 24 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Stéphane Ducasse | >> wrote: | >> | >>> | >>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Tudor Girba | >>> wrote: | >>> | >>>> Hi, | >>>> | >>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Stéphane Ducasse | >>>> wrote: | >>>> | >>>>> | >>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Dale K. Henrichs | >>>>> wrote: | >>>>> | >>>>>> Stef, | >>>>>> | >>>>>> I haven't completely wrapped my brain around what | >>>>>> SnapshotCello does so I don't have an informed opinion ... | >>>>>> the fact that you found a need to invent SnapshotCello does | >>>>>> speak volumes to the fact that there is a need that is going | >>>>>> unmet:). | >>>>>> | >>>>>> However, I don't like the fact that you end up sending a | >>>>>> non-spec message to make this work (#populateSpec:with:). | >>>>>> Tools like Versioner will not be able to rewrite a method | >>>>>> like this correctly so it is a less th
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
Hi, On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Johan Brichau wrote: > Doru, > > What do you understand with 'levels'? Is it referenced projects? Yes. Nested projects, each being under development :) > Perhaps this is the difference I did not immediately extract from your > description. Re-reading it with this focus makes the difference clear I think. > > My use of the toolbox is indeed to generate or update a version for a single > project where all 'nested' projects are referenced by project version. As I > understand it, the snapshot version is a 'flattened' version containing all > packages? Yes. My end goal would be to be able to create automatic transitive versioning of all nested configurations, but this requires some more work, and likely some extension at the level of Metacello. So, until this happens, we now have the option of snapshotting all packages. The cool thing is that if you have something like: ConfigurationOfMoose depends on ConfigurationOfGlamour then in the list of snapshotted packages, you will also get the version of ConfigurationOfGlamour. Thus, essentially, you obtain the same thing as if you would load nested configurations. The only problem is that because we lose configuration nesting information, Metacello is unable to resolve possible diamond conflicts. For example, suppose you have a project that depends on a certain version X of Glamour, but also would like to load the whole Moose that loads version Y of Glamour. If you use normal configurations, Metacello should be able to detect the conflict, but if you only have flattened versions, you will likely not detect the conflict so easily. In any case, I think this is acceptable at the moment. Cheers, Doru > I think I get it now. thanks > > Johan > > On 24 Jul 2013, at 12:45, Tudor Girba wrote: > >> Perhaps I missed something in the toolbox, but as far as I know you cannot >> create a version of a configuration that is composed of multiple >> sub-projects nested multiple levels deep. >> >> Could you describe the way you are using the Metacello Toolbox? >> >> Doru >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Johan Brichau wrote: >> Hi Doru, Stef, >> >> May I ask what the difference is with the version generation and updating >> methods found in MetacelloToolbox ? I want to understand, because I am >> currently using these of MetacelloToolbox to do the things you describe. >> >> Cheers! >> Johan >> >> On 24 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >>> Hi, On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Dale K. Henrichs > wrote: > >> Stef, >> >> I haven't completely wrapped my brain around what SnapshotCello does so >> I don't have an informed opinion ... the fact that you found a need to >> invent SnapshotCello does speak volumes to the fact that there is a need >> that is going unmet:). >> >> However, I don't like the fact that you end up sending a non-spec >> message to make this work (#populateSpec:with:). Tools like Versioner >> will not be able to rewrite a method like this correctly so it is a less >> than satisfactory workaround to the method literal limit. > Indeed. May be in the future we could recreate a simple compliant spec > driven method by interpreting the > existing configuration trees but this requires some work. I do not understand this point. What do you mean by "interpreting the configuration trees"? >>> >>> I mean going over the configurations with dependencies to recreate the tree >>> structure but with versions. >>> May be this is not needed because for versions we do not need dependencies >>> so just group them per configurations. >>> Doru >> >> With that said it _is_ performing a useful function ... >> >> I have recently come up with an approach to addressing the method >> literal limit from a slightly different angle and I would assume that >> SnapshotCello could be recast to use this "approved approach" when the >> new techinique becomes available. At that time it would make sense to >> roll the SnapshotCello funtionality into the MetacelloToolBox... >> >> Dale >> >> [1] >> http://forum.world.st/Loading-problem-in-Seaside-tp4699965p4700161.html >> - Original Message - >> | From: "Stéphane Ducasse" >> | To: "Moose-related development" >> | Cc: "Any question about pharo is welcome" >> , "Pharo Development List" >> | >> | Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:17:50 PM >> | Subject: [Moose-dev] Re: [ann] snapshotcello >> | >> | Nice to see SnapshotCello coming to live. May be it should be >> | integrated to Metacello. >> | Because everybody may need this cool feature. >> | >> | Stef >> | >> | On J
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
Doru, What do you understand with 'levels'? Is it referenced projects? Perhaps this is the difference I did not immediately extract from your description. Re-reading it with this focus makes the difference clear I think. My use of the toolbox is indeed to generate or update a version for a single project where all 'nested' projects are referenced by project version. As I understand it, the snapshot version is a 'flattened' version containing all packages? I think I get it now. thanks Johan On 24 Jul 2013, at 12:45, Tudor Girba wrote: > Perhaps I missed something in the toolbox, but as far as I know you cannot > create a version of a configuration that is composed of multiple sub-projects > nested multiple levels deep. > > Could you describe the way you are using the Metacello Toolbox? > > Doru > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Johan Brichau wrote: > Hi Doru, Stef, > > May I ask what the difference is with the version generation and updating > methods found in MetacelloToolbox ? I want to understand, because I am > currently using these of MetacelloToolbox to do the things you describe. > > Cheers! > Johan > > On 24 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > > > > On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Stéphane Ducasse > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Dale K. Henrichs > >>> wrote: > >>> > Stef, > > I haven't completely wrapped my brain around what SnapshotCello does so > I don't have an informed opinion ... the fact that you found a need to > invent SnapshotCello does speak volumes to the fact that there is a need > that is going unmet:). > > However, I don't like the fact that you end up sending a non-spec > message to make this work (#populateSpec:with:). Tools like Versioner > will not be able to rewrite a method like this correctly so it is a less > than satisfactory workaround to the method literal limit. > >>> Indeed. May be in the future we could recreate a simple compliant spec > >>> driven method by interpreting the > >>> existing configuration trees but this requires some work. > >> > >> I do not understand this point. What do you mean by "interpreting the > >> configuration trees"? > > > > I mean going over the configurations with dependencies to recreate the tree > > structure but with versions. > > May be this is not needed because for versions we do not need dependencies > > so just group them per configurations. > > > >> > >> Doru > >> > > With that said it _is_ performing a useful function ... > > I have recently come up with an approach to addressing the method > literal limit from a slightly different angle and I would assume that > SnapshotCello could be recast to use this "approved approach" when the > new techinique becomes available. At that time it would make sense to > roll the SnapshotCello funtionality into the MetacelloToolBox... > > Dale > > [1] > http://forum.world.st/Loading-problem-in-Seaside-tp4699965p4700161.html > - Original Message - > | From: "Stéphane Ducasse" > | To: "Moose-related development" > | Cc: "Any question about pharo is welcome" > , "Pharo Development List" > | > | Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:17:50 PM > | Subject: [Moose-dev] Re: [ann] snapshotcello > | > | Nice to see SnapshotCello coming to live. May be it should be > | integrated to Metacello. > | Because everybody may need this cool feature. > | > | Stef > | > | On Jul 23, 2013, at 10:43 PM, Tudor Girba > | wrote: > | > | > Hi, > | > > | > Stef and I developed Snapshotcello, a little utility that enables > | > you to freeze a snapshot of a given configuration based on what is > | > already loaded in your current image. > | > > | > The idea is simple. You develop against the latest versions of all > | > packages, and commit your changes for each package. When you are > | > ready for a release, you assemble your image, and generate a > | > snapshot version that can be reloaded later. > | > > | > Here is an example of how it can work to take a snapshot of a > | > development version: > | > Snapshotcello new > | > configurationClass: ConfigurationOfMoose; > | > configurationVersion: #development; > | > publishVersion: '4.8-snapshot' > | > > | > You can find more details here: > | > > http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/snapshotcello-take-a-snapshot-when-you-re-ready > | > > | > You can get the code at: > | > Gofer new > | > smalltalkhubUser: 'girba' project: 'Snapshotcello'; > | > package: 'ConfigurationOfSnapshotcello'; > | > load. > | > (Smalltalk globals at: #ConfigurationOfSnapshotcello
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
Perhaps I missed something in the toolbox, but as far as I know you cannot create a version of a configuration that is composed of multiple sub-projects nested multiple levels deep. Could you describe the way you are using the Metacello Toolbox? Doru On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Johan Brichau wrote: > Hi Doru, Stef, > > May I ask what the difference is with the version generation and updating > methods found in MetacelloToolbox ? I want to understand, because I am > currently using these of MetacelloToolbox to do the things you describe. > > Cheers! > Johan > > On 24 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Stéphane Ducasse > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Stéphane Ducasse < > stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Dale K. Henrichs < > dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > >>> > Stef, > > I haven't completely wrapped my brain around what SnapshotCello does > so I don't have an informed opinion ... the fact that you found a need to > invent SnapshotCello does speak volumes to the fact that there is a need > that is going unmet:). > > However, I don't like the fact that you end up sending a non-spec > message to make this work (#populateSpec:with:). Tools like Versioner will > not be able to rewrite a method like this correctly so it is a less than > satisfactory workaround to the method literal limit. > >>> Indeed. May be in the future we could recreate a simple compliant spec > driven method by interpreting the > >>> existing configuration trees but this requires some work. > >> > >> I do not understand this point. What do you mean by "interpreting the > configuration trees"? > > > > I mean going over the configurations with dependencies to recreate the > tree structure but with versions. > > May be this is not needed because for versions we do not need > dependencies so just group them per configurations. > > > >> > >> Doru > >> > > With that said it _is_ performing a useful function ... > > I have recently come up with an approach to addressing the method > literal limit from a slightly different angle and I would assume that > SnapshotCello could be recast to use this "approved approach" when the new > techinique becomes available. At that time it would make sense to roll the > SnapshotCello funtionality into the MetacelloToolBox... > > Dale > > [1] > http://forum.world.st/Loading-problem-in-Seaside-tp4699965p4700161.html > - Original Message - > | From: "Stéphane Ducasse" > | To: "Moose-related development" > | Cc: "Any question about pharo is welcome" < > pharo-us...@lists.pharo.org>, "Pharo Development List" > | > | Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:17:50 PM > | Subject: [Moose-dev] Re: [ann] snapshotcello > | > | Nice to see SnapshotCello coming to live. May be it should be > | integrated to Metacello. > | Because everybody may need this cool feature. > | > | Stef > | > | On Jul 23, 2013, at 10:43 PM, Tudor Girba > | wrote: > | > | > Hi, > | > > | > Stef and I developed Snapshotcello, a little utility that enables > | > you to freeze a snapshot of a given configuration based on what is > | > already loaded in your current image. > | > > | > The idea is simple. You develop against the latest versions of all > | > packages, and commit your changes for each package. When you are > | > ready for a release, you assemble your image, and generate a > | > snapshot version that can be reloaded later. > | > > | > Here is an example of how it can work to take a snapshot of a > | > development version: > | > Snapshotcello new > | > configurationClass: ConfigurationOfMoose; > | > configurationVersion: #development; > | > publishVersion: '4.8-snapshot' > | > > | > You can find more details here: > | > > http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/snapshotcello-take-a-snapshot-when-you-re-ready > | > > | > You can get the code at: > | > Gofer new > | > smalltalkhubUser: 'girba' project: 'Snapshotcello'; > | > package: 'ConfigurationOfSnapshotcello'; > | > load. > | > (Smalltalk globals at: #ConfigurationOfSnapshotcello) > | > loadDevelopment > | > > | > Cheers, > | > Doru > | > > | > -- > | > www.tudorgirba.com > | > > | > "Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle." > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > ___ > | > Moose-dev mailing list > | > moose-...@iam.unibe.ch > | > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > | > | > | ___ > | Moose-dev mailing list > | moose-...@iam.unibe.ch
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
Hi Doru, Stef, May I ask what the difference is with the version generation and updating methods found in MetacelloToolbox ? I want to understand, because I am currently using these of MetacelloToolbox to do the things you describe. Cheers! Johan On 24 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Stéphane Ducasse >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Dale K. Henrichs >>> wrote: >>> Stef, I haven't completely wrapped my brain around what SnapshotCello does so I don't have an informed opinion ... the fact that you found a need to invent SnapshotCello does speak volumes to the fact that there is a need that is going unmet:). However, I don't like the fact that you end up sending a non-spec message to make this work (#populateSpec:with:). Tools like Versioner will not be able to rewrite a method like this correctly so it is a less than satisfactory workaround to the method literal limit. >>> Indeed. May be in the future we could recreate a simple compliant spec >>> driven method by interpreting the >>> existing configuration trees but this requires some work. >> >> I do not understand this point. What do you mean by "interpreting the >> configuration trees"? > > I mean going over the configurations with dependencies to recreate the tree > structure but with versions. > May be this is not needed because for versions we do not need dependencies so > just group them per configurations. > >> >> Doru >> With that said it _is_ performing a useful function ... I have recently come up with an approach to addressing the method literal limit from a slightly different angle and I would assume that SnapshotCello could be recast to use this "approved approach" when the new techinique becomes available. At that time it would make sense to roll the SnapshotCello funtionality into the MetacelloToolBox... Dale [1] http://forum.world.st/Loading-problem-in-Seaside-tp4699965p4700161.html - Original Message - | From: "Stéphane Ducasse" | To: "Moose-related development" | Cc: "Any question about pharo is welcome" , "Pharo Development List" | | Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:17:50 PM | Subject: [Moose-dev] Re: [ann] snapshotcello | | Nice to see SnapshotCello coming to live. May be it should be | integrated to Metacello. | Because everybody may need this cool feature. | | Stef | | On Jul 23, 2013, at 10:43 PM, Tudor Girba | wrote: | | > Hi, | > | > Stef and I developed Snapshotcello, a little utility that enables | > you to freeze a snapshot of a given configuration based on what is | > already loaded in your current image. | > | > The idea is simple. You develop against the latest versions of all | > packages, and commit your changes for each package. When you are | > ready for a release, you assemble your image, and generate a | > snapshot version that can be reloaded later. | > | > Here is an example of how it can work to take a snapshot of a | > development version: | > Snapshotcello new | > configurationClass: ConfigurationOfMoose; | > configurationVersion: #development; | > publishVersion: '4.8-snapshot' | > | > You can find more details here: | > http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/snapshotcello-take-a-snapshot-when-you-re-ready | > | > You can get the code at: | > Gofer new | > smalltalkhubUser: 'girba' project: 'Snapshotcello'; | > package: 'ConfigurationOfSnapshotcello'; | > load. | > (Smalltalk globals at: #ConfigurationOfSnapshotcello) | > loadDevelopment | > | > Cheers, | > Doru | > | > -- | > www.tudorgirba.com | > | > "Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle." | > | > | > | > | > | > ___ | > Moose-dev mailing list | > moose-...@iam.unibe.ch | > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev | | | ___ | Moose-dev mailing list | moose-...@iam.unibe.ch | https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev | >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> moose-...@iam.unibe.ch >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar." > >
Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] Re: Re: [ann] snapshotcello
On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Stéphane Ducasse > wrote: > >> >> On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Dale K. Henrichs >> wrote: >> >>> Stef, >>> >>> I haven't completely wrapped my brain around what SnapshotCello does so I >>> don't have an informed opinion ... the fact that you found a need to invent >>> SnapshotCello does speak volumes to the fact that there is a need that is >>> going unmet:). >>> >>> However, I don't like the fact that you end up sending a non-spec message >>> to make this work (#populateSpec:with:). Tools like Versioner will not be >>> able to rewrite a method like this correctly so it is a less than >>> satisfactory workaround to the method literal limit. >> Indeed. May be in the future we could recreate a simple compliant spec >> driven method by interpreting the >> existing configuration trees but this requires some work. > > I do not understand this point. What do you mean by "interpreting the > configuration trees"? I mean going over the configurations with dependencies to recreate the tree structure but with versions. May be this is not needed because for versions we do not need dependencies so just group them per configurations. > > Doru > >>> >>> With that said it _is_ performing a useful function ... >>> >>> I have recently come up with an approach to addressing the method literal >>> limit from a slightly different angle and I would assume that SnapshotCello >>> could be recast to use this "approved approach" when the new techinique >>> becomes available. At that time it would make sense to roll the >>> SnapshotCello funtionality into the MetacelloToolBox... >>> >>> Dale >>> >>> [1] http://forum.world.st/Loading-problem-in-Seaside-tp4699965p4700161.html >>> - Original Message - >>> | From: "Stéphane Ducasse" >>> | To: "Moose-related development" >>> | Cc: "Any question about pharo is welcome" , >>> "Pharo Development List" >>> | >>> | Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:17:50 PM >>> | Subject: [Moose-dev] Re: [ann] snapshotcello >>> | >>> | Nice to see SnapshotCello coming to live. May be it should be >>> | integrated to Metacello. >>> | Because everybody may need this cool feature. >>> | >>> | Stef >>> | >>> | On Jul 23, 2013, at 10:43 PM, Tudor Girba >>> | wrote: >>> | >>> | > Hi, >>> | > >>> | > Stef and I developed Snapshotcello, a little utility that enables >>> | > you to freeze a snapshot of a given configuration based on what is >>> | > already loaded in your current image. >>> | > >>> | > The idea is simple. You develop against the latest versions of all >>> | > packages, and commit your changes for each package. When you are >>> | > ready for a release, you assemble your image, and generate a >>> | > snapshot version that can be reloaded later. >>> | > >>> | > Here is an example of how it can work to take a snapshot of a >>> | > development version: >>> | > Snapshotcello new >>> | > configurationClass: ConfigurationOfMoose; >>> | > configurationVersion: #development; >>> | > publishVersion: '4.8-snapshot' >>> | > >>> | > You can find more details here: >>> | > >>> http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/snapshotcello-take-a-snapshot-when-you-re-ready >>> | > >>> | > You can get the code at: >>> | > Gofer new >>> | > smalltalkhubUser: 'girba' project: 'Snapshotcello'; >>> | > package: 'ConfigurationOfSnapshotcello'; >>> | > load. >>> | > (Smalltalk globals at: #ConfigurationOfSnapshotcello) >>> | > loadDevelopment >>> | > >>> | > Cheers, >>> | > Doru >>> | > >>> | > -- >>> | > www.tudorgirba.com >>> | > >>> | > "Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle." >>> | > >>> | > >>> | > >>> | > >>> | > >>> | > ___ >>> | > Moose-dev mailing list >>> | > moose-...@iam.unibe.ch >>> | > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >>> | >>> | >>> | ___ >>> | Moose-dev mailing list >>> | moose-...@iam.unibe.ch >>> | https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >>> | >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> moose-...@iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar." > > > >
