[Vm-dev] DSAPlugin

[stephane ducasse]

david

Did you use metacello to manage your packages?
Because small packages can be really a problem if we do not have a way to manage them as a group.
I wrote the metacello chapter just for that: to help people managing their packages. 

Stef

On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:22 PM, David T. Lewis wrote:

> 
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:42:43AM -0300, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
>> 
>> I think we need to start deconstruct the "huge beast" it is VMMaker right now, and that means at first instance split the package in smaller parts. 
>> No reason to have all plugins (newer, older, living, obsolete) in just one package. 
>> But also, it would be good (IMHO) to have all plugin packages grouped in just one repository (same VMMaker repository) and easily installable with a ConfigurationOf... (now we have metacello, no reason to use hand made scripts)
>> 
>> If all agree in this, I can work a little on the split process (not right now, but in this weeks :) ).
> 
> Hi Esteban,
> 
> I agree in principle, but please do not do it now. I think it is
> very important to continue merging the two main VMMaker branches
> (traditional and oscog). I have been trying to make progress with
> this, and Eliot is certainly supportive, but I have to say that it
> is a lot of work and we rely heavily on the Monticello tools and
> matching package structures when comparing and merging code between
> oscog and trunk. If we were to break the packages into smaller
> pieces with different versions for trunk and oscog, the result
> would be difficult to keep track of in the VMMaker repository.
> 
> If we want to achieve a more modular VMMaker, the most important
> thing to work on is reconciling the code bases, both in VMMaker
> and in the platforms support. There is a lot of work to be done
> here, and I don't know if anyone is even looking at the problem
> on the platforms code side (aside from Andreas, who did some
> significant updates to the win32 and Cross files in trunk). Once
> that work is done, we can reorganize package structures to improve
> the overall maintainability. But in the near term, changing the
> package structure in VMMaker would make the job more difficult
> for me.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Dave
> 
> p.s. I know from personal experience that breaking packages into
> smaller pieces is not always a good idea, even if it sounds like
> the right thing to do. I split both the CommandShell and OSProcess
> packages into smaller packages, which seemed like a good idea because
> it would make them more modular. For CommandShell, this was very
> helpful, and I'm glad I did it.  But for OSProcess is was a big
> mistake, because it makes it harder for me to manage version releases,
> and it has provided no practical benefit to the users of OSProcess.
> So sometimes it is a good idea to do this, and sometimes it is not ;)
>