On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

Right, I just prefer that "script" to be a method in ReleaseBuilder so
> it is visible, trunk-maintained and scrutinized and recorded for
> posterity in our MC repositories.


OK, let's make that into a more concrete proposal. Rather than have
Smalltalk code being written with a text editor and versioned with Git, we
could have that code be written with the Squeak IDE and versioned with
Monticello. These CI packages would stored in a repository on
source.squeak.org, but NOT the trunk repository, and would not be part of
the trunk image. They'd be responsible for generating script files that
could be passed to the image on the command line for execution. (Rather
like VMMaker, in effect.)

Frank, I think that might actually make your life easier, without burdening
the trunk image or release artifacts with scaffolding. It's also orthogonal
to your proposal for activating CommandLineToolSet with some sort of
parameter from the command line. (If we could accomplish that without
breaking the has-a-Display-but-draws-it-to-the-network-instead-of-a-window
deployment mode, that would be great!)

Colin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140101/5526c2cc/attachment.htm