Andreas projects on SS

> I don't want stuff on the Internet under *my name* that someone else
> controls - to me its obvious.

Then you should not propose to "control" stuff under other people's
names, alive or not.

Besides, I was not even speaking about "control", just preservation.

Why was new-project creation disabled on SS in the 1st place?  Answer:
 As an act of preservation.

SS was not stable due to WideString and Socket bugs.  The former has
been fixed how about the latter?

BUT, the version of SS software currently supporting squeaksource.com
is STILL not scalable, (and a good reason why new-project creation
should remain disabled).  So who is committing to fixing SS when it
reaches its scale limits due to new versions of existing projects?
This is why I think SS should be made  a read-only "archive".  A
historical database of code with _longevity_ that people can
cherry-pick things to move to newer, more robust repositories.

The Magma-backed version of SS running on box4.squeak.org IS scalable
(as, I assume, the SS3 codebase?  Except I'm not sure since I thought
GemStone is the only thing that would make it scalable and we would
not have that in Squeak).  The Magma version provides two extra
features developers in this community asked for (method history across
all MC versions).

Dave said, "I could put it on SS3, but that would mean that some of my
plugins are on SS3 and others on SS.com."  And Goran is worried that
someone concerned with will find something "stale" on SS.  We keep
wringing our hands over this same old problem.  So much easier to just
use a simple catalog.  We even proposing to break into others'
accounts to "solve" cataloging issues rather than just use our
catalog..

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:41 AM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I seem to hear that people event want to create new projects there. With
its
> new home, that is an option we did not have a year ago. I'm not sure yet
> whether this is a good idea or not: Let's discuss.
>
> - Bert -
>

In my opinion squeaksource.com has history and we are asking people to move
off of squeaksource if we don't open it back up.  Not sure if that was the
intention but that is the result.  If there is a preferred place to host new
projects we should all just move to that.  If we all move to that then the
name squeaksource.com should go with it to make it easier for everyone.

If we open squeaksource back up and it's unreliable or takes too much time
from the community to support, then we are asking people to move.

Leaving zombie squeaksource.com as it is, is just asking for trouble.  Bit
rot, moved projects, split projects will eventually make everything on
squeaksource obsolete anyway.

If we don't have resources we should consider just opening it back up, or
pick a new platform and forward the name squeaksource.com to that.  If we
have resources maybe we should consider adopting one of the newer platforms.


All the best,

Ron Teitelbaum

Hey!

On 02/14/2014 04:55 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
>> I don't want stuff on the Internet under *my name* that someone else
>> controls - to me its obvious.
>
> Then you should not propose to "control" stuff under other people's
> names, alive or not.

The idea was to try to preserve the legacy from Andreas, by making sure
the code lives on - but it doesn't matter - I simply respect Ron's
decisions on that since he worked closely with Andreas, created a
company with Andreas and was a close friend of Andreas and also knows
Kathleen. IMHO he has the call, agree?

That was all. I would think Andreas had wanted his code to "live on" and
not rot away because noone has access to update it.

> Besides, I was not even speaking about "control", just preservation.

If I want to nuke some code I put in my own account, it should be up to
me. If I want to nuke my whole account it should be my decision. Period.
Bert and David agrees with me so I feel relatively safe.

regards, Göran

> If I want to nuke some code I put in my own account, it should be up to me.
> If I want to nuke my whole account it should be my decision. Period. Bert
> and David agrees with me so I feel relatively safe.

I hope you don't think I would ever actually act against your will,
Göran.  I just attribute more significance to nuking than you, that's
all.  :)

Hey!

I decided to sum up a bit here, we aren't getting anywhere really:

1. SS is *not* an archive. It doesn't *say* it is an archive (I don't
need to present more proof than that), it invites new people to register
and work there and it hosts alive projects that are open for write.

2. Since it is not an archive I reserve the right to delete my own stuff
from it - but I have decided that the least disruptive route (no old
URLs break) for my own projects that I have moved to StHub is to:
        - Place a visible note explaining this is archived projects
        - Place a last MC snapshot explaining the same
        - Turn them readonly

3. Regarding the original question of Andreas' projects and his account
- I think Ron can decide, is that fine with everyone else?

Ok, so that out of the way, anyone still awake in this thread and
really, really curious about catalogs etc here comes the rest:

On 02/14/2014 04:51 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
[SNIIIIP]
So you really think it is realistic to create a new canonical single
Smalltalk catalog?

>>> You have really forgotten how rich your SM domain is as a catalog
>>> model.  You designed it back then when we faced the same problem we do
>>> now:  Uncertainty about where and how external software is loaded.  SS

I haven't forgotten.

Well, if I go by the "does people use it as a catalog"-test - then they
*are* catalogs. People search in them and browse them, because there is
no other catalog they can use. End of story, they are catalogs.

If I want to check if there is an IMAP implementation I need to:

- Search in SS
- Search in SS3
- Search in StHub (yeah, its silly limited at this point, but you can)
- Probably search in whatever new catalog Pharo has come up with, I
really don't know how that works yet.
- Probably search in github too (found cool stuff there just the other day)
- Search google, to cover all bases

> StHub doesn't even have a Browse function, one of the most basic
> use-cases of a catalog!  None of the above (except Metacello) knows
> one IOTA about anything in any repository other than its own.

Well, yeah, but since Metacello does all of them can actually reference
other repos. Metacello - even if I think it is crazy confusing - is the
only thing we have at this point for the area it covers.

> By definition, that's not a catalog.

I disagree. If people use these things as catalogs, then they are.

> Göran, YOU were the one who, about 10 years ago, opened MY eyes to the
> distinction of a Catalog domain from a Source-Code-Repository domain.
> What happened man?

Hehe, well, lots of things happened. I now have two daughters for one
thing, which means my spare time to build a new global super
encompassing catalog is cut down to about 0 hours.

I still think it would be ubercool to have a really good common catalog
that covers at least all platforms that does MC *and* that people
actually rely on for say 99% of the time.

BUT... although that would be cool to have I don't see anyone here
pulling it off. That's being realistic. :)

>>> If you want to put external URL information that one would expect to
>>> find in the catalog in the SC repository "notes" field for your
>>> projects, you can do that.  But to break into another account and do
>>> it is something I think we should ask ourselves, "is this _really_
>>> necessary, or should we just have a catalog since that solves this and
>>> so many other issues too?"

Problem: Make sure Andreas' projects don't rot.

Solution proposed: Start building a single global catalog and convince
all the other projects to use it. Then when that is done just make sure
that new catalog does not point to Andreas' old frozen projects as the
live ones.

....nah.

Yeah, those are TWO different catalogs. I was saying "single canonical
catalog". 2 > 1.

[SNIP]
Ah... so the red box says "archive"? Nope. It is not an archive! Not,
not, not!!! ;)

[SNIP]
Eh, for a project that I am also keeping alive at StHub? Why would I
encourage someone to maintain a fork on SS?

[SNIP]
> All the more reason, Göran, for you to re-embrace the _idea_ of a real catalog.

You have no idea how much energy I put into it last time. And in this
day and time it would be 10x harder to get people on board.

> Until that idea takes root and people in the community actually
> _accept_ it, we will continue to languish in the very "confusion" you
> want to avoid.

Yup! And during that languishing I am doing the small things to keep "my
shit together" to avoid confusion. :)

regards, Göran