9 May
2015
9 May
'15
2:58 p.m.
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
I do not know because I do not really understand your solution.
What I hope to do is to be able to release Moose with versions and that
Moose could be released every month.
We will see that with christophe ppm.
Now not having versions (or may be there are released moose versions
based on exact version number) and
a nearly systematic way to work on alpha of Pharo is clearly the best
way to have most of the risk when you need stability.
(And I do not talk about people having to change all the roassal code in
the middle like olivier for his paper on artefact).
And you should understand that people from RMOD are not complaining to
me. I think that some of them just do not use
recent versions of Moose take one and stay with it. Now I'm curious to
know if we can rebuild an old Moose image.
So this means that people should not use an image automatically built (I
sincerly hope that I'm wrong here).
I did not talk recently to synectiquers but they do probably the same
and I understand them.
Stef