Just to explain,
we try to make a living by building on top of Moose
we try to adapt it to the lambda Cobol developper that may not be
interested in learning a new syntax
So the simplest change in Moose can sometimes break everything for us.
As Usman explained, we cannot test again each morning every single
feature we already implemented for every language we support.
So having a bleeding edge Moose for us is not a solution
nicolas
On 11/05/2015 11:12, Usman Bhatti wrote:
Hi,
In Synectique's case, we had several problems working with Bleeding
edge of Moose:
1/ changes to the API
2/ changes that lead to performance problems
3/ when depending on bleeding edge of Pharo always testing the combo
Pharo + Moose
The first one is important because one does not want to spend
resources adapting to inadvertent changes. And it is easy to handle as one
can always depend on a given version number (not a stable because it is
moving and may create surprises that are less frequent than the bleeding
edge).
Regarding changes that lead to performance issues, someone must test
with real cases and evaluate. Depending on the version number works fine
here too.
We would not have needed to create our own configuration if we could
downgrade PetitParser but apparently, that is not possible and hence the
easier solution was to create our own configuration.
The ConfigurationOfSynectiqueMoose is just an assembly of existing
versions of the components in Moose (these versions are published
publicly). We just loading by hand:
-> SmallDude because it has a dependency on ConfigurationOfMoose
-> GT-Toolkit and PetitSQL because there were paths leading to
PetitParser #development.
As for Moose depending on the bleeding edge of Pharo, it is risky
business because when demoing or delivering a new version to a client, the
red square of death is difficult to justify. With the stable version, we at
least know where not to click :p. But one is not testing new combinations
(coming from Pharo + Moose) in production.
But if there are alternate solutions in our eco-system that enable the
use of bleeding edge in production that shield the users from inadvertent
changes, it'll be nice to know.
regards,
Usman
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>
wrote:
Hi,
Yes, I think we have a different point of view on what Moose is.
I do not expect people to fork, but if they do, I would expect them
to do it in a public place and help us maintain the configuration(s). For
example, we could have:
- a Moose/Moose51 repository
- commit packages with new patches for Moose 5.1 only there, and
- modify the #stable version corresponding configurations to load those
new packages.
This is doable. Would that be Ok?
Cheers,
Doru
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:43 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote:
> Just a question.
> Do you expect people needing to have stable version to fork and work
> in their corners?
> I do not get why Moose dev should systematically be under the bleeding
> edge of Pharo.
> I probably do not understand what Moose is.
>
> Stef
>
> Le 5/5/15 19:17, Tudor Girba a écrit :
>
> Please do not do this until we release. The reason is that this will
> generate more commits that will be specific to pharo 5, like the current
> substring problem in get inspector.
>
> The goal is to release this or next week, and then we move to pharo
> 5.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
> --
>
www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every thing has its own flow"
>
> On 05 May 2015, at 19:52, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com>
> wrote:
>
> Anyone who has access to the CI can do this?
>
> Alexandre
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel
http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
> On May 5, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Andrei Chis <chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> Right now now we're updating configurations and fixing the remaining
> issues to be able to release moose 5.1
> We can in parallel start a build for Pharo 5 but we do not have to
> much time to invest in it (apart from starting it) until we release.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrei
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
> alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Is there any plan to move on Pharo 5?
>> Can someone trigger a build?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alexandre
>> --
>> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
>> Alexandre Bergel
http://www.bergel.eu
>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing
listMoose-dev@iam.unibe.chhttps://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing
listMoose-dev@iam.unibe.chhttps://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch