Hi,
Indeed, we will definitely not support two Pharo/Moose versions at the same time.
Cheers,
Doru
On Mar 24, 2013, at 9:40 PM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)free.fr> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2013, at 2:00 AM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openInWorld.com> wrote:
I think that releasing Moose 4.8 as a stable
version following the migration to Pharo 2.0 is a very good idea. It allows
"users" to get the latest fruit from 2.0 without having Moose as a moving target
with ongoing development. I admire and approve being on the bleeding edge, however with
CI I think there might be some middle ground. I only know the parts of Moose that I have
been using - Roassal, Glamour & Magritte - but from an outside perspective it seems
that the migration from Pharo 1.4 to 2.0 went fairly smoothly. So maybe most of Moose is
insulated from Pharo infrastructure changes? As a trial (to see how much resources it
takes) perhaps Moose can have both a CI job for 2.0 and a CI job for 3.0. Maintain both
streams only as long as practical - perhaps until the to the first 2.x release to
incorporate any Pharo bug fixes into Moose 4.8.
Don't put a lot of weight on the above. I am just sharing an idea for others more
involved to have the greater discussion. I have only been an occasional contributor to
Roassal, and the next couple of months is writing up my dissertation and not much
programming (but after that I'd like to get more involved.)
What we will do is to load the Moose 4.8 stable to test the new vms.
Now what we (pharoers) can have is a CI to load Moose dev on 3.0alpha just to see what is
happening.
But in a no way I would support two streams. We are too small for this kind of setup.
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen."