Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

A plan for the release

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

22 messages Options

Eliot Miranda-2

A plan for the release

Hi Tobias, Hi Marcel,

I want to each Chris' praise. I'm loving the energy you're putting in right now. But we do want to release soon. Can you both talk about when you are going to stabilize? Do you have specific features in mind, in which case what are they and what's a time estimate for their completion? Otherwise can you suggest a date?

Eliot (phone)

marcel.taeumel (old)

Re: A plan for the release

Hi Eliot,

right now, I am working only on the HelpBrowser (~1-2 weeks left), doing some code clean-up and also some bug fixing -- including ui bugs. ;-)

No bigger change (major changes to standard tools or new tools) planned from my side. As for the stability, my observation is that we are getting more stable with every update.

But what about new packages for this release:
- SqueakSSL
- WebClient

Any ideas on that?

Best,
Marcel

marcel.taeumel (old)

Re: A plan for the release

And could we turn of the seconds of the clock in the main docking bar?^^

Best,
Marcel

timrowledge

Re: A plan for the release

On 03-04-2015, at 9:56 AM, Marcel Taeumel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> And could we turn of the seconds of the clock in the main docking bar?

That option is in an easily reachable morph menu (for certain definitions of ‘easily reachable’), so in principle it could be defaulted to off as part of the release, or a preference might be warranted.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Science is imagination equipped with grappling hooks.

Karl Ramberg

Re: A plan for the release

In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2

Hi,
May I suggest removing Universes ?
Universes seem totally defunct

Karl

Eliot Miranda-2

Re: A plan for the release

In reply to this post by marcel.taeumel (old)

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Marcel Taeumel <[hidden email]> wrote:

And could we turn of the seconds of the clock in the main docking bar?^^

Yes please :)

Best,
Marcel

--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-plan-for-the-release-tp4817346p4817382.html

Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

best,

Eliot

Eliot Miranda-2

Re: A plan for the release

In reply to this post by marcel.taeumel (old)

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Marcel Taeumel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Eliot,

right now, I am working only on the HelpBrowser (~1-2 weeks left), doing
some code clean-up and also some bug fixing -- including ui bugs. ;-)

No bigger change (major changes to standard tools or new tools) planned from
my side. As for the stability, my observation is that we are getting more
stable with every update.

But what about new packages for this release:
- SqueakSSL
- WebClient

Any ideas on that?

It's not my call. My concern here is VM impact. Only SqueakSSL has implications for the VM right? I would have to make sure that SqueakSSL builds correctly and the tests pass for all platforms. With help from those that have compiled and used SqueakSSL I think I could manage that.

Best,
Marcel

--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-plan-for-the-release-tp4817346p4817347.html
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

best,

Eliot

Chris Muller-3

Re: A plan for the release

In reply to this post by marcel.taeumel (old)

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Marcel Taeumel
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> And could we turn of the seconds of the clock in the main docking bar?^^

Please no! They are very useful for 1) knowing at a glance when the
system is done with a computatoin and 2) crude eye-ball timing.

Those seconds are waaaaay up there in the corner of your massive, 27"
monitor, if you can't even find ObjectExplorers opening up on your
desktop then those seconds moving is not going to bother you.. :-)

Herbert König

Re: A plan for the release

Hi,

>> And could we turn of the seconds of the clock in the main docking bar?^^
> Please no! They are very useful for 1) knowing at a glance when the
> system is done with a computatoin and 2) crude eye-ball timing.
same here.

Herbert

marcel.taeumel (old)

Re: A plan for the release

In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3

Ah, nice scenario! Didn't think of that one.

...hey! Buy youself a bigger monitor! :P Speaking of that:

For which resolution do we want to optimize Squeak? 800x600? 1024x768? :)

Best,
Marcel

David T. Lewis

Re: A plan for the release

In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2

On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 11:48:06AM -0700, Eliot Miranda wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Marcel Taeumel <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Eliot,
> >
> > right now, I am working only on the HelpBrowser (~1-2 weeks left), doing
> > some code clean-up and also some bug fixing -- including ui bugs. ;-)
> >
> > No bigger change (major changes to standard tools or new tools) planned
> > from
> > my side. As for the stability, my observation is that we are getting more
> > stable with every update.
> >
> > But what about new packages for this release:
> > - SqueakSSL
> > - WebClient
> >
> > Any ideas on that?
> >
>
> It's not my call. My concern here is VM impact. Only SqueakSSL has
> implications for the VM right? I would have to make sure that SqueakSSL
> builds correctly and the tests pass for all platforms. With help from
> those that have compiled and used SqueakSSL I think I could manage that.

IIRC, the SSLPlugin does not work when compiled for 64-bits, but it is probably
OK for Cog/Spur compiled for 32-bits.

Dave

Chris Muller-3

Re: A plan for the release

In reply to this post by marcel.taeumel (old)

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Marcel Taeumel
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ah, nice scenario! Didn't think of that one.
>
> ...hey! Buy youself a bigger monitor! :P Speaking of that:
>
> For which resolution do we want to optimize Squeak? 800x600? 1024x768? :)

800x600.

timrowledge

Re: A plan for the release

On 04-04-2015, at 3:41 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Marcel Taeumel
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Ah, nice scenario! Didn't think of that one.
>>
>> ...hey! Buy youself a bigger monitor! :P Speaking of that:
>>
>> For which resolution do we want to optimize Squeak? 800x600? 1024x768? :)
>
> 800x600.
>

Really, that small? Are there any devices with screens that small any more? Surely the minimum likely limit is HD tv size, implying to me that a default around 1024x900 would be plausible.

What reason do you have for going for smaller?

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
If you don't pay the exorcist do you get repossessed?

Herbert König

Re: A plan for the release

Am 05.04.2015 um 02:09 schrieb tim Rowledge:

> On 04-04-2015, at 3:41 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Marcel Taeumel
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Ah, nice scenario! Didn't think of that one.
>>>
>>> ...hey! Buy youself a bigger monitor! :P Speaking of that:
>>>
>>> For which resolution do we want to optimize Squeak? 800x600? 1024x768? :)
>> 800x600.
>>
> Really, that small? Are there any devices with screens that small any more? Surely the minimum likely limit is HD tv size, implying to me that a default around 1024x900 would be plausible.
>
> What reason do you have for going for smaller?
>

In my household: Two Laptops with 1280 x 800, one with 1600x900 my
mobile with 1280x720. All having Squeak installed. We host foreign
students and most of them have older Laptops.

I think (correct me) that three years ago a common Laptop would have
less than HD resolution.

So yes 800x600 because expanding to fullscreen is one click while sizing
down on a screen which doesn't show the whole window is much more hassle.
I wouldn't mind the 1024 horizontal but the 900. And what should be
displayed on the additional pixels?

Cheers,

Herbert

marcel.taeumel (old)

Re: A plan for the release

http://vote.pollcode.com/32499929

Best,
Marcel

Frank Shearar-3

Re: A plan for the release

Pity that doesn't show _who_ voted. So: I voted for 800x600, because
it's much easier/ess annoying to increase the window size yourself
than to reduce the window size.

frank

On 5 April 2015 at 09:25, Marcel Taeumel
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> http://vote.pollcode.com/32499929
>
> Best,
> Marcel
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-plan-for-the-release-tp4817346p4817641.html
> Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Chris Muller-3

Re: A plan for the release

In reply to this post by timrowledge

> Really, that small? Are there any devices with screens that small any more?

http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/

I thought you of all people would be pushing for even smaller than
800x600 to hook up an R-pi to a tiny screen...

> Surely the minimum likely limit is HD tv size, implying to me that a default around 1024x900 would be plausible.

HDTV size is for the application of watching TV. Squeak is for
developing apps. :)

> What reason do you have for going for smaller?

800x600 is the same size we've deployed. We are not "going smaller"
and we're not "going bigger."

Because of the reasons Herbert and Frank gave, 800x600 is a good choice.

marcel.taeumel (old)

Re: A plan for the release

Then we should double-check the default window sizes *and* add a factor for larger resolutions. I thought about making it dependent from the font size but we may not use a smaller font for 800x600 this time ... should we? Well, we could... what is the opinion on the default font size for 800x600? If the font size is affected, "go full screen" is not enough anymore... but I am not a 800x600-user. :)

Best,
Marcel

Karl Ramberg

Re: A plan for the release

In reply to this post by Karl Ramberg

What about a possibility to push personal preferences to a monticello repository ?

Everyone could just branch off the release version with their own version and push publish.

It could make maintaining preferences across several images and computers a little easier.

Any reason this would not work?

Karl

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Karl Ramberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,
May I suggest removing Universes ?
Universes seem totally defunct

Karl

--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-plan-for-the-release-tp4817346p4817399.html
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Stephan Eggermont-3

Re: A plan for the release

In reply to this post by marcel.taeumel (old)

On 05/04/15 17:21, Marcel Taeumel wrote:
> Then we should double-check the default window sizes *and* add a factor for
> larger resolutions. I thought about making it dependent from the font size
> but we may not use a smaller font for 800x600 this time ... should we? Well,
> we could... what is the opinion on the default font size for 800x600? If the
> font size is affected, "go full screen" is not enough anymore... but I am
> not a 800x600-user. :)

The difference with developer machines starts to get really large.
I think 1024*720 should be safe for nearly every device sold in the past
3 years. I recently switched to 4K, and settings for 800*600
don't work too well for that.

Stephan