16 Nov
2011
16 Nov
'11
9:49 a.m.
Hi,
I would like to release 4.6 soon. It's been too long, and it contains important
fixes.
After this, we should allocate the effort to improve the packaging and the configurations.
Perhaps one idea is to synchronize this re-packaging effort with the move to
SmalltalkHub.
What do you say?
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Value is always contextual."
16 Nov
16 Nov
12:46 p.m.
I would like to release 4.6 soon. It's been too
long, and it contains important fixes.
+1
After this, we should allocate the effort to improve
the packaging and the configurations. Perhaps one idea is to synchronize this re-packaging
effort with the move to SmalltalkHub.
I haven't closely look at SmalltalkHub. But will this work with Monticello and
Metacello? I guess so, this should not impact the way we work.
What do you say?
We definitely need to work on the packaging. This is really frustrating that we are
interested in software evolution and we are not able to analyze the evolution of Moose.
I think we should do a complete reshape of the all the configuration used in Moose. We
should start a new version of Moose incrementally, by adding packages, step by step. We
should organize a workshop only on this task. End of January is feasible for me.
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
1 p.m.
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Bergel
<alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
Sure. If you look at a project, you will even see that it has a
special section dedicated to Gofer scripts directly on the main
webpage.
It's not packages that pose the problem. It's the big picture that is
not clearly defined that poses a problem. Because of this, packages
are placed in the wrong places, and this to leads unwanted dependency
gets, and in the end, configurations get messy and sometimes circular.
Please read the message I sent a while ago entitled: "major repackaging
planned"
Cheers,
Doru
I would like to release 4.6 soon. It's been
too long, and it contains important fixes.
+1
After this, we should allocate the effort to
improve the packaging and the configurations. Perhaps one idea is to synchronize this
re-packaging effort with the move to SmalltalkHub.
I haven't closely look at SmalltalkHub. But will this work with Monticello and
Metacello? I guess so, this should not impact the way we work. What do you
say?
We definitely need to work on the packaging. This is really frustrating that we are
interested in software evolution and we are not able to analyze the evolution of Moose.
I think we should do a complete reshape of the all the configuration used in Moose.
We should start a new version of Moose incrementally, by adding packages, step by step.
We should organize a workshop only on this task. End of January is feasible for me.
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
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
1:07 p.m.
We should
start a new version of Moose incrementally, by adding packages, step by step. We should
organize a workshop only on this task. End of January is feasible for me.
It's not packages that pose the problem. It's the big picture that is
not clearly defined that poses a problem. Because of this, packages
are placed in the wrong places, and this to leads unwanted dependency
gets, and in the end, configurations get messy and sometimes circular.
Please read the message I sent a while ago entitled: "major repackaging
planned" 
17 Nov
17 Nov
7:54 p.m.
we could do a workshop at Lille. Doru you could come and talked to inria people too :)
Stef
On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
I read it and I agreed with it. I am all for it. I think that trying to refactor the
configuration will not work. Both of us tried with Dale and no much has changed.
We should start the configuration and the packaging from scratch by carefully thinking
what is really the structure we want to have, as you said.
I can could to Europe at the end of January to work on this.
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
We should start a new version of Moose incrementally,
by adding packages, step by step. We should organize a workshop only on this task. End of
January is feasible for me.
It's not packages that pose the problem. It's the big picture that is
not clearly defined that poses a problem. Because of this, packages
are placed in the wrong places, and this to leads unwanted dependency
gets, and in the end, configurations get messy and sometimes circular.
Please read the message I sent a while ago entitled: "major repackaging
planned"
7:52 p.m.
sounds good to me
I will spend some time to finish the famix30 deliverables (I feel a bit alone).
and after the importer and the MSE -> FM cleaning.
Stef
On Nov 16, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I would like to release 4.6 soon. It's been too long, and it contains important
fixes.
After this, we should allocate the effort to improve the packaging and the
configurations. Perhaps one idea is to synchronize this re-packaging effort with the move
to SmalltalkHub.
What do you say?
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Value is always contextual."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
4784
days inactive
4785
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba