[Moose-dev] Re: Moose on Pharo 5

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 &lt;tudor(a)tudorgirba.com <mailto:tudor@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 &lt;stepharo(a)free.fr <mailto:stepharo@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 : _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch <mailto:Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> "Every thing has its own flow" _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch <mailto:Moose-dev@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