[Vm-dev] can I have right to http://www.squeaksource.com/OSProcessPlugin ?

[Nicolas Cellier]

2017-06-07 16:45 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at gmail.com>:

>
>
> On 7 Jun 2017, at 15:15, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmai
> l.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2017-06-07 14:32 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> Hi Dave, list
>>
>> I want to commit some changes to OSProcessPlugin.
>> Can I have rights to that repository?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Esteban
>>
>> ps: I need to insist in the necessity of having all VM plugins (the
>> “official” ones: those who are compiled with the osvm builds) in the same
>> place. Otherwise this is a horrible (and irreproducible) process.
>>
>>
> Hi Esteban,
> why not reproducible?
> Isn't it manageable with a Monticello Configuration Map (.mcm) as David
> suggested, or a Metacello ConfigurationOf... for being more pharo-to-date?
>
>
> because is a pain to maintain, and having different repository services
> makes you needing to thrust in different providers status, and then if you
> want to work offline you need to take a copy of each repository which are
> dispersed all around the world.
>

The  location are relatively stable so far (one move from
www.squeaksource.com <http://www.squeacksource.com> to source.squeak.org
for VMMaker a few years ago).


> I just lost 3 hours of my life trying to figure out which version of
> OSProcessPlugin was the correct one, then looking for the correct
> repository, etc.
> This wouldn’t happened if all used plugins are maintained together.
>
> ... Nor if you would use either a mcm or Metacello configuration.

Speaking of repository map, I just checked the status of Pharo 6, and it
does not look more simple:

 [image: Images intégrées 1]

Naming branches and tagging stability is a different problem than
repository location.

For OSProcess, there are only two branches (interpreter and oscog/spur),
and history is quite linear (just bug fixes). So the policy is: load
latest, run regression tests, revert only if something goes wrong.

It's true that in MC, explicitely naming branches is optional, but we can...
It's just a convention (like naming master trunk cog or anything else is
just a convention in git). I'm not sure we really need it yet for plugins,
new features are scarce.

The main difference is not about branches, it's more about integration of
tools, issues/wiki/PR/CI.


> btw (advocating for the way I would like to have things) this wouldn’t
> even be necessary if all packages needed would be versioned along the
> platform sources, using filetree format… then having the clone of your
> desired version you would be sure to have also the correct VMMaker AND
> plugin versions… but I know this way of sorting things is too much to ask,
> so I would be happy if all packages are *at least* in the same place.
>
> Esteban
>
>
For having worked a bit on the pharo-vm two years ago, the workflow was
horrible.

We had the workspace provided by image state - which is like a mixture of
working copy (dirty with unpublished changes) + staging area (cherry
picking thru MC GUI), eventually with branches/stach saved in
package-cache, or in other MC repositories.

This was concurrencing the working copy on disk, which was often out of
sync, and conflicting.

Branches in MC repositories had to be synced manually with git branches (I
used my own Smalltalkhub repository for my own experiments with many
feature branches, plus official VMMaker repo which I regularly tried to
merge, plus pharo VM github repo).

Each pull request was rotting immediately due to MC metadata and
incomprehensible policy of ignoring the merge tool provided by Thierry
Goubier (which was working quite smoothly).
And there were bugs introduced by pharo in MC, plus bugs of file names too
long, and I probably forget other annoyances.

So it was a nice experiment for learning, but clearly not mature.

Shifting entirely to git would reduce the complications a bit. and I
promise I will test the new git-based-in-image-version-control-tools
provided by Pharo and help getting closer to your ideal world.
But what about the status of image changes? Or is the image a pseudo file
system?
Anyway, you know it will take time to reach the maturity and smoothness of
MC. MC rocks (at least in Squeak).

Stability of tools apart, for OSProcessPlugin, we have a different case:
the manager wants to control integration of change requests. How is it
going to work with a single repository? Or is it something you want to
change too?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20170607/31ca6dfd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Capture d’écran 2017-06-07 à 20.36.36.png
Type: image/png
Size: 272246 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20170607/31ca6dfd/attachment-0001.png>