Moose-dev

moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch

6621 discussions

Re: [Metacello] Re: Branch blessing and lastVersion
by Dale Henrichs 05 Dec '09

05 Dec '09

Simon, I've been thinking about the same problems for GLASS ... I want it to be possible for individual developers to release bugfixes/improvements for sharing, but hadn't thought too far into it ... nano releases sounds like the right way to go...as far as a convention ... Re: filtering on version and blessing ... I think that the special '#' character in patterns should stay ... blessings don't have a sort order so at the moment they are odd beasts ... for example I can't say 'belssing > #alpha' ... so perhaps we need to define a sort order for blessings ... I lean away from a canonical list of blessings, so folks would need to be able to add blessings/priority to a project ... Have to come up with the low-level filtering api and then create come higher level helper methods ... I'm open to suggestions at the moment... Dale ----- "Simon Denier" <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr> wrote: | Thinking again about the dev process specifically in Moose (not | subprojects such as CAnalyzer, Mondrian...), branches for developer | should be 'nano' releases actually, that is: | - 4 is a major release of Moose | - 4.1 is a minor release, but still something consistent | - 4.2.x should be for release in the main trunk, i.e. mostly dev and | | beta version before releasing a minor release (would be 4.2) | - 4.2.x.y is a branch of one developer (something short-lived, | typically for a task resolution, once finished should be merged in | main trunk) | | We could also follow the linux rule: | - 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1 are the dev versions for the future 4.2 stable | | releases | - 4.2, 4.2.1 etc are minor and micro releases but stable, with bug | fixes | i.e. minor is odd -> dev version, minor is even -> stable version | This does not mean we work on two versions in parallel (we dont have | | the manpower), but it just to help distinguish between dev and stable | | versions | | I'm just pushing ideas out of my head. Now, with this process, we have | | three main requirements for Moose: | - making it easy for anybody to retrieve (and identify it) the latest | | stable version | - making integration in the main dev trunk the priority (we have | limited resources, so each developer should take care to merge its | changes in the main trunk, and start over from the main trunk for a | new task, NOT always working in the same branches) | - managing micro/nano releases from each developer | | I'm sorry if this feels too complicated and overly complex, it is not. | | I'm just playing with different schemas and see what could work best. | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Now of course Metacello should not care about conventions (minor, | micro...) of each project. Your proposition seems reasonable and | flexible enough. | | But then, how can I ask for a version with a specific blessing? | | | | On 4 déc. 2009, at 18:48, Dale Henrichs wrote: | | > | > Thinking off the top of my head, would it be work to supply a | > pattern of some sort as an arg? Something like: | > | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*.*' | > | > Not a real regex (because of the periods would need to be escaped, | | > but mainly because reading regex for me is like trying to read | > russian:). | > | > Maybe best is a special purpose character like '#' in addition to | > the standard(?) smalltalk patterns '*' and '?': | > | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '#.#' ---> matches all | > major.minor | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '1.#' ---> matches all | > 1.minor | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*' ---> is current | > algorithm | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*.0' ---> matches | > versions with trailing .0 | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '?.#' ---> matches single | | > character major.minor | | I dont see what is the use of this one? | | | | > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '1.#.3' ---> is invalid | > | > This one seems to the right approach ... I can add a #match: method | | > to MetacelloVersionNumber to implement the pattern matching. | > | > What do you think? | > | > Dale | > | > ----- "Simon Denier" <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr> wrote: | > | > | Suppose I have versions like this: | > | 1.3.2 #development --> branch by a developer | > | 1.3.1 #development --> branch by a developer | > | 1.3 #development --> main trunk, last dev | > | 1.2 #stable --> main trunk, last stable | > | | > | When I perform a ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion, I would | | > like | > | | > | to retrieve the config for the last dev version common to | everybody, | > | | > | and I would like this to be 1.3, not 1.3.2 which is the work of | one | > | guy not yet merged in the main trunk. | > | | > | Right now, I get 1.3.2 | > | | > | Perhaps we could have something like this: | > | 1.3.2 #branch --> branch by a developer | > | 1.3.1 #branch --> branch by a developer | > | 1.3 #development --> main trunk, last dev | > | 1.2 #stable --> main trunk, last stable | > | | > | and branch would be an 'unstable' tag ignored by the loader when | > | asking for latestVersion or lastVersion (and veryLastVersion | could | > | retrieve the latest version, be it a branch, dev, or stable). | > | | > | I have no special requirements here, I'm just playing with the | idea | > | and process of how to manage micro releases with Metacello. | > | | > | -- | > | Simon | | -- | Simon

1 0

Re: [Metacello] Re: Branch blessing and lastVersion
by Simon Denier 05 Dec '09

05 Dec '09

Thinking again about the dev process specifically in Moose (not subprojects such as CAnalyzer, Mondrian...), branches for developer should be 'nano' releases actually, that is: - 4 is a major release of Moose - 4.1 is a minor release, but still something consistent - 4.2.x should be for release in the main trunk, i.e. mostly dev and beta version before releasing a minor release (would be 4.2) - 4.2.x.y is a branch of one developer (something short-lived, typically for a task resolution, once finished should be merged in main trunk) We could also follow the linux rule: - 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1 are the dev versions for the future 4.2 stable releases - 4.2, 4.2.1 etc are minor and micro releases but stable, with bug fixes i.e. minor is odd -> dev version, minor is even -> stable version This does not mean we work on two versions in parallel (we dont have the manpower), but it just to help distinguish between dev and stable versions I'm just pushing ideas out of my head. Now, with this process, we have three main requirements for Moose: - making it easy for anybody to retrieve (and identify it) the latest stable version - making integration in the main dev trunk the priority (we have limited resources, so each developer should take care to merge its changes in the main trunk, and start over from the main trunk for a new task, NOT always working in the same branches) - managing micro/nano releases from each developer I'm sorry if this feels too complicated and overly complex, it is not. I'm just playing with different schemas and see what could work best. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now of course Metacello should not care about conventions (minor, micro...) of each project. Your proposition seems reasonable and flexible enough. But then, how can I ask for a version with a specific blessing? On 4 déc. 2009, at 18:48, Dale Henrichs wrote: > > Thinking off the top of my head, would it be work to supply a > pattern of some sort as an arg? Something like: > > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*.*' > > Not a real regex (because of the periods would need to be escaped, > but mainly because reading regex for me is like trying to read > russian:). > > Maybe best is a special purpose character like '#' in addition to > the standard(?) smalltalk patterns '*' and '?': > > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '#.#' ---> matches all > major.minor > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '1.#' ---> matches all > 1.minor > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*' ---> is current > algorithm > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '*.0' ---> matches > versions with trailing .0 > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '?.#' ---> matches single > character major.minor I dont see what is the use of this one? > ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion: '1.#.3' ---> is invalid > > This one seems to the right approach ... I can add a #match: method > to MetacelloVersionNumber to implement the pattern matching. > > What do you think? > > Dale > > ----- "Simon Denier" <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > | Suppose I have versions like this: > | 1.3.2 #development --> branch by a developer > | 1.3.1 #development --> branch by a developer > | 1.3 #development --> main trunk, last dev > | 1.2 #stable --> main trunk, last stable > | > | When I perform a ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion, I would > like > | > | to retrieve the config for the last dev version common to everybody, > | > | and I would like this to be 1.3, not 1.3.2 which is the work of one > | guy not yet merged in the main trunk. > | > | Right now, I get 1.3.2 > | > | Perhaps we could have something like this: > | 1.3.2 #branch --> branch by a developer > | 1.3.1 #branch --> branch by a developer > | 1.3 #development --> main trunk, last dev > | 1.2 #stable --> main trunk, last stable > | > | and branch would be an 'unstable' tag ignored by the loader when > | asking for latestVersion or lastVersion (and veryLastVersion could > | retrieve the latest version, be it a branch, dev, or stable). > | > | I have no special requirements here, I'm just playing with the idea > | and process of how to manage micro releases with Metacello. > | > | -- > | Simon -- Simon

2 1

for mondrian designers
by stephane ducasse 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

vedea: new microsoft scripting graphices.... http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=4691 and http://processing.org/ The future of mondrian may be in Cairo support or Juan works. So consider to have a look at the cairo package in PharoTaskForces because it will not come to you alone :) Stef

5 12

Re: mse file export doesn't work
by Tudor Girba 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

Thanks Fabrizio, Please provide the following info: - inFusion version - case study (how to get the code) so that I can reproduce the problem. Cheers, Doru On 4 Dec 2009, at 12:43, Fabrizio Perin wrote: > Hi Tudor, > i have problem to export the mse file from inFusion. It doesn't work > form the command line. Trying in the GUI I get this message: > > FAMIX 3.0 MSE Exporter could not be run ! > java.lang.NullPointerException > at > com > .intooitus > .infusion > .util.FAMIX30MSEExporter.visitMethod(FAMIX30MSEExporter.java:171) > at com.intooitus.memoria.core.Method.accept(Method.java:222) > at > com > .intooitus.infusion.util.MSEExporter.exportToStream(MSEExporter.java: > 70) > at > com > .intooitus > .infusion > .plugins.tools.memoria.MSEExporterTool.run(MSEExporterTool.java:40) > at > com > .intooitus > .infusion > .gui.ui.EntityMouseAction.actionPerformed(EntityMouseAction.java:198) > at > javax.swing.AbstractButton.fireActionPerformed(AbstractButton.java: > 2028) > at javax.swing.AbstractButton > $Handler.actionPerformed(AbstractButton.java:2351) > at > javax > .swing > .DefaultButtonModel.fireActionPerformed(DefaultButtonModel.java:387) > at > javax.swing.DefaultButtonModel.setPressed(DefaultButtonModel.java:242) > at javax.swing.AbstractButton.doClick(AbstractButton.java:389) > at > com.birosoft.liquid.LiquidMenuItemUI.doClick(LiquidMenuItemUI.java: > 492) > at com.birosoft.liquid.LiquidMenuItemUI > $MouseInputHandler.mouseReleased(LiquidMenuItemUI.java:1161) > at java.awt.Component.processMouseEvent(Component.java:6348) > at javax.swing.JComponent.processMouseEvent(JComponent.java:3267) > at java.awt.Component.processEvent(Component.java:6113) > at java.awt.Container.processEvent(Container.java:2085) > at java.awt.Component.dispatchEventImpl(Component.java:4714) > at java.awt.Container.dispatchEventImpl(Container.java:2143) > at java.awt.Component.dispatchEvent(Component.java:4544) > at java.awt.LightweightDispatcher.retargetMouseEvent(Container.java: > 4618) > at java.awt.LightweightDispatcher.processMouseEvent(Container.java: > 4282) > at java.awt.LightweightDispatcher.dispatchEvent(Container.java:4212) > at java.awt.Container.dispatchEventImpl(Container.java:2129) > at java.awt.Window.dispatchEventImpl(Window.java:2475) > at java.awt.Component.dispatchEvent(Component.java:4544) > at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEvent(EventQueue.java:635) > at > java > .awt > .EventDispatchThread.pumpOneEventForFilters(EventDispatchThread.java: > 296) > at > java > .awt > .EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForFilter(EventDispatchThread.java:211) > at > java > .awt > .EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForHierarchy(EventDispatchThread.java: > 201) > at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(EventDispatchThread.java: > 196) > at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(EventDispatchThread.java: > 188) > at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.run(EventDispatchThread.java:122) > > Hope that can help you. > > Cheers, > > Fabrizio > -- www.tudorgirba.com "We are all great at making mistakes."

4 8

building a MooseModel is very long
by Cyrille Delaunay 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

For example you can run the method MooseModel class >> mseExportationTest I remember that some times ago ( some weeks) it was not as long as that. Is it normal ? Am I doing something wrong ?

3 12

issue tracker
by Tudor Girba 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

Hi, I would kindly ask you to place an entry in the issue tracker before you start working on something (even if it's not a bug): http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/list Also, when you add an issue, please make sure to tag it at least with the Component that is affected by it. If you want to work on it, also assign it to yourself. This has the benefit of communicating your intention around and synchronize with the rest of us. If you want to be up to date with the changes in the issue tracker, you can subscribe to the RSS feed: http://code.google.com/feeds/p/moose-technology/issueupdates/basic Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Beauty is where we see it."

5 13

Re: [Fame-dev] Re: Changes in Fame
by Adrian Kuhn 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

If there are not dependencies back to Moose, having the filter in Fame is genau the right place. --AA On Dec 3, 2009, at 11:49 , Cyrille Delaunay wrote: > Ok. But the class 'ParseClientFilter' is not FAMIX-specific and I > thougth it would maybe be usefull for fame. If it's not, I can move > it into a moose package :) > > 2009/12/3 stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)gmail.com> > but cyrille > > FAMIX stuff should not polute Fame > so you should extend (subclass) in moose pckage and hope that FAME > will take your extension into account. > > Stef > On Dec 3, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Cyrille Delaunay wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I just save some changes on the Fame squeaksource repository: > > > > - Implement a 'ParseClientFilter' that enable to parse and import > mse filtering some elements. This is use in Moose to specify the > FAMIX elements (FAMIX.Class, FAMIX.Method, ...) you want to import > in a MooseModel from a MSE File (This is already available by > selecting 'import from MSE' in the MoosePanel). > > > > - Two Lint rules in Fame-Util about the Moose issue 143 > > -> checking if a FM3 class respect the fame name convention > between FM3 and Smalltalk > > -> checking if the superclass defined in a FM3MetaDescription > t exist and is well defined. > > > > > > > > >

1 0

mse import wizard
by Tudor Girba 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

Hi Cyrille, The MSE Import Wizard is a good step forward, but it has a problem: The entity types are hardcoded. This is a big problem because we should be able to load any entity. It would be better if that list would be gathered from the types from MooseModel meta. ImportingContext should not be hardcoded either, but it should be computed from the same repository by traversing the properties. For example, in FAMIXMethod>>parentType says that FAMIXClass is required for FAMIXMethod. In the same time, FAMIXMethod is not required for a FAMIXClass because the property FAMIXClass>>methods isDerived. Basically in this way, we should be able to create the graph dynamically and thus we can use the mechanisms for any meta-model. What do you think? In the meantime I restored the previous implementation as a temporary solution, because now we have PrimitiveType that should also be loadable. Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar."

3 9

inFusion 7.2.6
by Tudor Girba 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

Hi, inFusion 7.2.6 was just released: http://www.intooitus.com/infusion/download/inFusion.zip With it, we now have export of PrimitiveType and of declaredType for Method, Function and all variables. Also the access modifiers are now correct. Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef."

2 1

About Metacello and the Moose process
by Simon Denier 03 Dec '09

03 Dec '09

Unfortunately, there have been too many threads this morning *About Metacello* Well Metacello is still in beta, so good news is that we can make it better. Problem is that it can do a lot of things about which we (I) dont a clear picture for now, it requires some usage and conventions, and myself I'm still quite unsure about how Metacello manages nested configuration (for example right now, when I perform a ConfigurationOfMoose updateDefault, it does not update the nested configurations. I am not sure but I think it should) Suggestions: 1) have better names loadLast -> loadDevVersion or loadVeryLast loadLatest -> loadStableVersion or loadLastStable (those 2 are really annoying) Also the names in the OB commands could be better and reflect the current conventions: Save project -> save configuration update project -> update configuration Update Package Methods -> update current version??? Now, when I do a "Current Project Version" on any ConfigurationOf, it does not work except for the one with Metacello. I dont know, maybe the configurations do not respect some rules? It's annoying because it breaks the above tools. 2) refactor the documentation When I started with Metacello 3 months ago it was easy because there was one recent post describing the things. Now three months later this is a problem because things have changed a lot but this post is still the first hit in google "metacello" http://gemstonesoup.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/metacello-package-management-f… Now if you try to follow links there is this post and then this post http://gemstonesoup.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/a-shiny-new-api-for-metacello/ http://gemstonesoup.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/metacello-1-0-beta-14-released/ Finally it appears that http://code.google.com/p/metacello/w/list is now the source for documentation. There is the API reference for declaration, description of OBCommands,... Unfortunately it lacks something about how to play with last/latest versions with the API. - if I go to the tutorial, it just refers to the embedded tutorial in the code and I dont want to load the tutorial each time I need some documentation So please Dale, can you put a few items about things such as ConfigurationOfXXX project lastVersion, how to manipulate groups, things discussed with Lukas? 3) Good tool for managing configuration, saving projects... There is a small browser in GLMSmalltalkExamples>>metacelloBrowser, maybe somebody can start to enhance it to display version and perform commands. *About the Moose process* I dont think the Pharo process and the Moose process compare. The Pharo process is about integrating fixes from packages which are supposed to do one and only one thing, and do it well and is tested. The Moose process is about developers making incremental changes to the code base so that they can work and share it immediately. Which means it can break other things. Now I'm pretty sure I dont want a release every time someone commits a package in Moose, because I'm pretty sure this someone didn't run all the tests before committing. So making a release for each new commit makes no sense for me. We dont integrate changes, we just merge when there are some divergent branches. That's why we are always working with the dev version and the 'default' is one way to do it. If we want historical data about Moose, I guess it's still possible to retrieve all latest packages at a given date. It will not be very different from what we used at this date. Now about the *release* process for Moose: sure I would like that there will be more releases. Now as Doru said, when we do a release, we should do it for every sub projects and it's bit difficult with the current tools. - One way to do automatically it is to use the test server to at least create a new version from the latest dev version and blessed it as 'tested' if 100% tests passed or 'broken' But I dont want such versions to pollute the manual versions, which are supposed to be stronger. So something like create automatically 'testedVersionXXX' with tests or broken as possible blessing. - Then we can do manual release from time to time (every two weeks, every months?), which requires more work as we have to do it for the different subprojects first, and blessed it as beta or stable. BTW, why is the beta version in Moose marked as 'baseline'? It does not make sense. It should be beta or stable. -- Simon

3 12

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Moose-dev