[BUGFIX] SqueakMap is broken in 3.10

> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:34:41AM -0800, Rob Withers wrote:
>> This dang VersionNumber class has a bad equality operation..  Here's a
>> fix.
>
> http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=2788
>
> --
> Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/
> Help improve Squeak Documentation: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/808
>
>

> I'll just go ahead and preface this with my own claims of 'tiredness' or
> at least frustration.
>
> First the initial report was sent to the mailing list with something
> resembling the old scheme of bug/fix reporting (although not quite
> matching) rather than being posted to http://bugs.squeak.org/ .  I
> sighed deeply but decided to simply ignore it.
>
> Matthew kindly tried to move things in that direction, but with little
> apparent success.
>
> Now I notice that you (Goran) don't once mention below the option of
> adding a report on Mantis under the SqueakMap category.
>
> It has now been three years since we started with Mantis and deprecated
> the old report to list method.  And yet new reports still occasionally
> appear on the list.
>
> Yes, it's true that this is still the functionality that appears in the
> image.  I'll accept that as the primary reason new reports continue to
> appear on the list.
>
> All I can say is "Is anyone itching enough yet to actually build a
> system we will use?"  I think it's pretty clear by now that Mantis does
> not represent such a system.  I'll be the first to admit that Mantis
> doesn't cause me to want to scratch very much and so I have no
> confidence that I can define a system that will be accepted.
>
> Too be more than a little blunt, it's time for all of us to put up or
> shut up.  A few of us have complained about Mantis in the past.  I'm not
> going to name names but I think it's time for those who don't feel like
> Mantis is a workable solution to start seriously thinking about the
> shape of a significantly more appropriate solution.
>
> Ken

> Yeah, I noticed this too - and fixed it too - and ended up forgetting I
> did it. :)
>
> Let me see - in a perfect world (my perfect world) - this email (yours)
> would more or less be sent to me since I am a co-maintainer of
> VersionNumber on SM (using some nice mapping between PI and SM etc that
> actually is in place but not in use) and I would put the fix in and
> publish a new version of that darn package (which btw is a quite poor
> class all in all, when you look really, really close you realize that
> you can only branch ONCE per version number, ouch!!).
>
> Eh, ok, so I just tried and... hmmph. Ok, so VersionNumber is an old .st
> file on SM. I made a new release of that. But... hmmm, so I notice two
> methods on VersionNumber are class extensions from SMBase - which could
> be moved into VersionNumber now that I am messing with it (haven't done
> that earlier).
>
>  (ok, so I tried using an old 3.8-6665 image and did "SMSqueakMap
> bootStrap" in it and then upgrade all - seems to end up fine with the
> fix in place)
>
> But SMBase... has diverted off in 3.10 with changes that I am fairly
> sure are not backwards compatible with 3.8 (ChangeSorter vs
> ChangeOrganizer).
>
> Ok, I give up there. I can't say I understand how SM is supposed to be
> maintained anymore - feel free to enlighten me. In fact - feel free to
> explain to us all how the new process/model for bug fixing, maintenance,
> packages etc is meant to work (IIRC that was the purpose of 3.10).
>
> And no, not being sarcastic - possibly a bit tired.
>
> regards, Göran
>

> I'll just go ahead and preface this with my own claims of 'tiredness' or
> at least frustration.
>
> First the initial report was sent to the mailing list with something
> resembling the old scheme of bug/fix reporting (although not quite
> matching) rather than being posted to http://bugs.squeak.org/ .  I
> sighed deeply but decided to simply ignore it.
>
> Matthew kindly tried to move things in that direction, but with little
> apparent success.
>
> Now I notice that you (Goran) don't once mention below the option of
> adding a report on Mantis under the SqueakMap category.
>
> It has now been three years since we started with Mantis and deprecated
> the old report to list method.  And yet new reports still occasionally
> appear on the list.
>
> Yes, it's true that this is still the functionality that appears in the
> image.  I'll accept that as the primary reason new reports continue to
> appear on the list.
>
> All I can say is "Is anyone itching enough yet to actually build a
> system we will use?"  I think it's pretty clear by now that Mantis does
> not represent such a system.  I'll be the first to admit that Mantis
> doesn't cause me to want to scratch very much and so I have no
> confidence that I can define a system that will be accepted.
>
> Too be more than a little blunt, it's time for all of us to put up or
> shut up.  A few of us have complained about Mantis in the past.  I'm not
> going to name names but I think it's time for those who don't feel like
> Mantis is a workable solution to start seriously thinking about the
> shape of a significantly more appropriate solution.
>
> Ken
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Edgar
> J. De Cleene
> Sent: 05 November 2007 10:11 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: Mantis Experiment a Failure? Are we ready yet to move on?
> (was Re: [BUGFIX] SqueakMap is broken in 3.10)
>
>
>
>
>
> El 11/5/07 6:46 PM, "Ken Causey" <[hidden email]> escribió:
>
> > I'll just go ahead and preface this with my own claims of 'tiredness' or
> > at least frustration.
> >
> > First the initial report was sent to the mailing list with something
> > resembling the old scheme of bug/fix reporting (although not quite
> > matching) rather than being posted to http://bugs.squeak.org/ .  I
> > sighed deeply but decided to simply ignore it.
> >
> > Matthew kindly tried to move things in that direction, but with little
> > apparent success.
> >
> > Now I notice that you (Goran) don't once mention below the option of
> > adding a report on Mantis under the SqueakMap category.
> >
> > It has now been three years since we started with Mantis and deprecated
> > the old report to list method.  And yet new reports still occasionally
> > appear on the list.
> >
> > Yes, it's true that this is still the functionality that appears in the
> > image.  I'll accept that as the primary reason new reports continue to
> > appear on the list.
> >
> > All I can say is "Is anyone itching enough yet to actually build a
> > system we will use?"  I think it's pretty clear by now that Mantis does
> > not represent such a system.  I'll be the first to admit that Mantis
> > doesn't cause me to want to scratch very much and so I have no
> > confidence that I can define a system that will be accepted.
> >
> > Too be more than a little blunt, it's time for all of us to put up or
> > shut up.  A few of us have complained about Mantis in the past.  I'm not
> > going to name names but I think it's time for those who don't feel like
> > Mantis is a workable solution to start seriously thinking about the
> > shape of a significantly more appropriate solution.
> >
> > Ken
>
> Not a failure.
> I find Mantis very valuable and think (as I put in some mail) some bugs
> reports deserve showing to students for how a bug was find , what several
> Squeakers have to say about, proposed and developed solutions, etc.
>
> If good Squeaker  forget do reports or he is too busy , we could wait some
> more time.
> Or someone here notice and do the report.
>
> Maybe some could do a Squeak front end to Mantis for easier and
> to hand way
> ?
> Edgar
>
> P.S. And Squeakmap  always works in 3.10 ...
>
>
>