[Cuis] Cuis
Locked
123456
... 9
123456
... 9
 
|
Hi,
Am 22.01.2010 um 06:18 schrieb Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>: > Try this: ... my bad. Why did I write "shell script"? ;-) Thanks, Michael |
|
|
In reply to this post by Miguel Cobá
At 10:53 PM -0600 1/21/10, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez apparently wrote:
> > Write tool to leverage the trunk activity then. Stop whining about >> losing control (via Mantis). >> People like a new and easy way to contribute, otherwise nobody would >> put any commits in trunk. >> Is this something that hard to understand? > >Is there somewhere a list of the users that have commited changes to the >trunk? >Or how many people have been contributing with this new model? > >I for sure have seen commits from >Levente >Nicolas Cellier >Andreas Raab > >Who else? Is an honest question. > > >-- >Miguel Cobá >http://miguel.leugim.com.mx From the initials on the packages at <>, I see the following: 1622 packages with the following initials and number of packages. ul - 130 tfel - 11 tbn - 3 stephaneducasse - 1 sm - 1 sd - 3 rss - 7 rkrk - 11 rej - 1 p4s - 1 nice - 475 ml - 2 mir - 1 mha - 18 md - 8 MarcoSchmidt - 1 MAD - 5 ls -1 laza - 29 klc - 2 kb -15 jmv - 35 jdr - 1 jcg -24 it - 2 Igor.Stasenko - 5 hpt - 1 HenrikSperreJohansen - 1 gsa - 1 gk - 1 enno - 1 eem - 9 edc - 41 dtl - 110 dew - 1 dc - 1 cwp - 8 cbc - 4 bs - 2 bp - 6 bf - 18 auto - 16 ar - 606 al - 2 Ken G. Brown |
|
|
In reply to this post by johnmci
Correct, so we need a process and tools that will provide the knowledge to ease this as much as possible.
Ok, so perhaps I am being a bit unfair, because Elliot at least made his progress in an "offline" initiative, he didn't develop in trunk. However, manually throwing the result into trunk is not much use to 3.10 users, what is needed is a script and changesets I can apply to my working images, in a repeatable fashion, within an environment that will do the appropariate regression tests.
It was based upon the 3.10 closures image that Elliot or Andreas produced, however i didn't have the knowledge to progress it any further, and when I asked for feedback I got none. I told Elliot and Andreas about the image and the bugs it was throwing up and there was not much response, (I assumed they were fixing the problems), apart form Andreas saying why are you bothering with this "3.11 would be too soon for closures".
How? I don't know how to. Its all very well for you vm hackers to do this, but the closures changeset hosed the debugger for me, and at that point its beyond me. I need a script which shows me the end to end process of applying closures to a existing known released image, so that I can retrace those steps on my image. That knowledge would better be captured by a process which requires such contributions, and integrates them, rather than a repository where 10 people are all working at once. regards, and thanks for your reply on Eliotts behalf Keith |
|
|
In reply to this post by Torsten Bergmann
oops, added the repository link...
At 10:53 PM -0600 1/21/10, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez apparently wrote: > > Write tool to leverage the trunk activity then. Stop whining about >> losing control (via Mantis). >> People like a new and easy way to contribute, otherwise nobody would >> put any commits in trunk. >> Is this something that hard to understand? > >Is there somewhere a list of the users that have commited changes to the >trunk? >Or how many people have been contributing with this new model? > >I for sure have seen commits from >Levente >Nicolas Cellier >Andreas Raab > >Who else? Is an honest question. > > >-- >Miguel Cobá >http://miguel.leugim.com.mx From the initials on the packages at <http://source.squeak.org/trunk/>, I see the following: 1622 packages with the following initials and number of packages. ul - 130 tfel - 11 tbn - 3 stephaneducasse - 1 sm - 1 sd - 3 rss - 7 rkrk - 11 rej - 1 p4s - 1 nice - 475 ml - 2 mir - 1 mha - 18 md - 8 MarcoSchmidt - 1 MAD - 5 ls -1 laza - 29 klc - 2 kb -15 jmv - 35 jdr - 1 jcg -24 it - 2 Igor.Stasenko - 5 hpt - 1 HenrikSperreJohansen - 1 gsa - 1 gk - 1 enno - 1 eem - 9 edc - 41 dtl - 110 dew - 1 dc - 1 cwp - 8 cbc - 4 bs - 2 bp - 6 bf - 18 auto - 16 ar - 606 al - 2 Ken G. Brown |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
El jue, 21-01-2010 a las 21:18 -0800, Andreas Raab escribió:
> Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote: > > Is there somewhere a list of the users that have commited changes to the > > trunk? > > Try this: > > bag := Bag new. > (MCHttpRepository > location: 'http://source.squeak.org/trunk' > user: '' password: '') allFileNames do:[:fname| > (fname endsWith: '.mcz') ifTrue:[ > bag add: ((fname copyAfterLast: $-) copyUpTo: $.)]]. > bag sortedCounts. > With this quickly modified code: bag := Bag new. (MCHttpRepository location: 'http://source.squeak.org/trunk' user: '' password: '') allFileNames do:[:fname| (fname endsWith: '.mcz') ifTrue:[ bag add: ((fname copyAfterLast: $-) copyUpTo: $.)]]. counts := bag sortedCounts. totalCommits := counts detectSum: [ :each | each key ]. totalCommiters := counts size. counts collect: [ :each | Array with: each value with: each key with: (each key / totalCommits * 100 asFloat).] I get: an OrderedCollection( #('ar' 517 34.14795244385733) #('nice' 465 30.71334214002642) #('ul' 128 8.45442536327609) #('dtl' 110 7.26552179656539) #('edc' 41 2.708058124174372) #('jmv' 35 2.311756935270806) #('laza' 26 1.717305151915456) #('jcg' 21 1.387054161162483) #('mha' 18 1.1889035667107) #('bf' 17 1.122853368560106) #('auto' 16 1.056803170409511) #('kb' 15 0.990752972258917) #('tfel' 11 0.726552179656539) #('rkrk' 11 0.726552179656539) #('eem' 9 0.59445178335535) #('cwp' 8 0.528401585204756) #('md' 8 0.528401585204756) #('rss' 7 0.462351387054161) #('bp' 6 0.3963011889035666) #('MAD' 5 0.330250990752972) #('Igor' 5 0.330250990752972) #('cbc' 4 0.264200792602378) #('tbn' 3 0.1981505944517833) #('sd' 3 0.1981505944517833) #('ml' 2 0.132100396301189) #('al' 2 0.132100396301189) #('it' 2 0.132100396301189) #('klc' 2 0.132100396301189) #('rej' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('gsa' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('MarcoSchmidt' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('sm' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('HenrikSperreJohansen' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('mir' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('ls' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('enno' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('dc' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('jdr' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('gk' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('dew' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('stephaneducasse' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('p4s' 1 0.0660501981505945) #('hpt' 1 0.0660501981505945)) there are 44 commiters, 15 of them just commited 1 fix. 5 of the commited 2 fixes 10 of them commited between 3 and 10 fixes 10 of them commited between 11 and 41 fixes And this four commiters are the real, in practical terms, commiters and driving directions of pharo. #('ar' 517 34.14795244385733) #('nice' 465 30.71334214002642) #('ul' 128 8.45442536327609) #('dtl' 110 7.26552179656539) they together have made 34.14 + 30.71 + 8.45 + 7.26 = 80.56% of all the commits. To me this is a community of four (or 14 adding the next 10 most frequent commiters). Interesting. > Cheers, > - Andreas > > -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx |
|
|
Hi Miguel,
Am 22.01.2010 um 07:10 schrieb Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <[hidden email] m>: > To me this is a community of four (or 14 adding the next 10 most > frequent commiters). isn't that definition of "community" a bit narrow? Best, Michael |
|
|
El vie, 22-01-2010 a las 07:23 +0100, Michael Haupt escribió:
> Hi Miguel, > > Am 22.01.2010 um 07:10 schrieb Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <[hidden email] > m>: > > To me this is a community of four (or 14 adding the next 10 most > > frequent commiters). > > isn't that definition of "community" a bit narrow? Well the trunk was create to allow the community to easily and readily to contribute to the code in squeak isn't? But whatever, my point is that 4 people account for 80% of the changes made to the trunk image since it was born. Just a fact. > > Best, > > Michael -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
Eliot, I did participate in the bootstrap, I thought I was the first to do so, excepting perhaps Andreas. Bob built an LPF image, with MC1.5 etc, on your first 3.10-closures image, you can download it from ftp.squeak.org and I requested feedback or suggestions as to what to do next with it to get the debugger working and got none.
I did not choose to disengage, as I have stated several times, I had no choice, and I still have no choice. Perhaps a timeline will explain. 1. Due to the unfortunate cancelation of an unrelated client project just a few weeks prior to this I had no money and I was a bit down. In this period there was a 2 month silence form Andreas and the board, not a dicky-bird. I was working hard on 'bob', at times, and Bob began producing deliverables, documentation and screen casts. Bob was auto-building developer images, and one click images etc. 2. Andreas sent the email "This is THE new process for squeak development" that CANCELLED my work, (talk about kicking man when he is down) it ended it right there, not a single line of code has been written for Bob beyond that day. Bob needs about an hours work (plus a bit of debugging) to configure the automatic testing facility, and then the bob 3.11 "process development" effort was complete. 3. Since then as a direct result of andreas' email to squeak-dev (when I had specifically asked Andreas to make release discussions in the release-team mailing list) My client and financial situation have effectively forbidden me to work any further on "the bob process", since my paying clients support of "bob" development was based on the concept that the squeak community would be using "bob", and it would be the future platform for release-team work, providing regular updates to the base image, to our production images, and regular regression tested derived images upon which to build and test our production images. Since the "trunk" based process will only yield an image once every 12-18 months, we might as well just manually rebuild our base production images every 2 years or so, we don't therefore have a pressing need for a continuous integration server any more. 4. When Andreas cancelled "bob" he cancelled my income from bob related tools development, and pissed off my client to the extent that work which had earlier suffered somewhat at the expense of "bob" was now a priority. If I work on bob, I effectively lose the income I do have.
Cuis is based upon Squeak 3.7 Spoon is based upon 3.2 Doesn't dabble db still use 3.7 images as its workhorses. Gjallar was on 3.8 up until a year or 2 ago, when Installer allowed it to move to 3.10
The problem with computers is, you are stuck with what you buy for 20 years or more in some cases. You are one of the lucky ones that gets to always use the latest stuff. For example, the harrier jump jet nozzle models are written in PDP11 basic, limited to 9999 lines of code, they still have pdp11's
I didn't fail to make a release, the release wasn't the objective. Andreas finally realised that after 2 months. A version of the release image 3.11 was produced manually by a script 18 months earlier. Ken Brown had a go and did it himself. Anyone can hack an image, it takes a bit longer to produce a continuous integration server that makes an image. The task we wrote a proposal for to the board was for a "continuous integration PROCESS", NOT an image. What you forget, or don't know, is that we only made this proposal after the board had outright announced plans to cancel 3.11, and said there would be no further development of 3.x. I.e. The board at the time said we DONT want an image, 3.10 is the end of the line, for 3.x We piped up and said, ok, but if we had a continuous integration server, that could produce a 3.11, 3.12 etc as stabilising maintenance releases, bringing 3.x to a solid dependable conclusion, in anticipation of the brave new world of Squeak 5.x Radical "change the world work" was being carried out in Spoon, Squeak 5.0, so Andreas should have taken over spoon, which was over a year past its promised delivery date, without any sign of progress updates. Andreas and the board moved the goal posts that they had approved without even bothering to talking to us. All of a sudden we are accused of not producing an image, when that wasn't the goal. It was pretty disingenuous to scupper all that work without even a discussion, or consideration of the implications.
Like I said the board had cancelled 3.x already.
No I don't lack objectivity. We were doing exactly what we had said we would do, and we were at the point of packaging up the final deliverables, and we would have told anyone that talked to us of the situation. That we were no more than a week away from completion and potential delivery of the cherished image. Since the image is auto generated, you simply pick your release date and it generates it according to the status of mantis at the time. So the process of discussion would have been, ok guys we have two weeks to tidy up a few of the mantis reports, and to check things, then we will hit the button and your image will be produced. The sudden inflammation of the discussion on squeak-dev where complete strangers started asking where is the new image, was a complete surprise, and I didn't even think it was worth replying to at the time, because we had made it clear already in writing, approved by the board that we were not producing one, but the means to produce one. There are protocols, namely that the release-team is responsible for the releases, and it was Andreas' duty to join the release team, and to work with the leaders, without being contrary and to discuss release ideas on the release-team mailing list, when I had made a specific request for him to do so. It was extremely disingenuous of him to start the release-team discussions on squeak-dev, when I had explicitly asked him not to because at the time my paying clients were on squeak-dev and could see what was happening. As a result they pulled the financial plug on me, and constrained my freedom to make further benevolent contributions.
I only threatened that in a moment of complete disgust and abject poverty, wondering where I would get my next meal from. Check the repositories and the licences. I have mentioned several times that Bob is in the repos and all repos are open.
Nope you are not wrong, because I can't do anything, like I say I have no choice. Keith |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Cuis] Cuis
|
|
On 1/22/10 4:46 AM, "keith" <[hidden email]> wrote: Bob built an LPF image, with MC1.5 etc, on your first 3.10-closures image, you can download it from ftp.squeak.org <http://ftp.squeak.org> and I requested feedback or suggestions as to what to do next with it to get the debugger working and got none. I ignore all rest of nonsense mail except this. Write exact how to do for get closures on http://ftp.squeak.org/various_images/SqueakLight/MinimalMorphic.7246.zip. Process of Andreas fail and Cuis updates also fails. I was ignorant about how to get Closures in the most modular and smaller 3.10 compatible thing , so enlighten me. If the process success I say you was a super master and all us a bunch of fools. If contrary, you says mumble jumble or attack working people , continue my working in silence and ignore you again. Edgar |
|
|
In reply to this post by Miguel Cobá
Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote:
> El vie, 22-01-2010 a las 07:23 +0100, Michael Haupt escribió: >> Hi Miguel, >> >> Am 22.01.2010 um 07:10 schrieb Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <[hidden email] >> m>: >>> To me this is a community of four (or 14 adding the next 10 most >>> frequent commiters). >> isn't that definition of "community" a bit narrow? > > Well the trunk was create to allow the community to easily and readily > to contribute to the code in squeak isn't? Yes, but absolute numbers are no measure for that. You'll have to compare the number of commits over some period of time to make a relevant comparison. For example, you could compare it to the number of change sets that have been posted on Mantis for a given period of time. > But whatever, my point is that 4 people account for 80% of the changes > made to the trunk image since it was born. 80% of the *commits*, not 80% of the *changes*. Number of commits is no adequate measure for the impact of changes. You're leaving out (for example) Juan's work (text editors, fonts), Eliot's work (closures, debugger), and Igor's work (method trailers etc). Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
In reply to this post by Miguel Cobá
Hi Miguel,
2010/1/22 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <[hidden email]>: >> isn't that definition of "community" a bit narrow? > > Well the trunk was create to allow the community to easily and readily > to contribute to the code in squeak isn't? right. I wouldn't go as far as to narrow down the idea of community to just the people that commit much in terms of code. There are other kinds of contributions, and other ways to contribute. I also think that people who just use the trunk image for development belong to the community. There's the core developers, and there's the community; those who shape the ecosystem, and those who inhabit it. > But whatever, my point is that 4 people account for 80% of the changes > made to the trunk image since it was born. That is a correct observation, but again you're only measuring contributions that were made in terms of committing to the source code repository. BTW I don't know how those numbers look in other, comparable, OSS communities. Could it be the same? Best, Michael |
|
|
Michael Haupt wrote:
> BTW I don't know how those numbers look in other, comparable, OSS > communities. Could it be the same? Easy to find out. Using the "80% rule" (i.e., how many contributors make up at least 80% of the commits) we end up with: - http://source.squeak.org/39a: 2 contributors (sd, md) - http://source.squeak.org/310: 1 contributor (edc) - http://squeaksource.com/Pharo: 2 contributors (sd, md) - http://squeaksource.com/Seaside30: 3 contributors (lr, jf, pmm) Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
Hi Andreas,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote: > Easy to find out. Using the "80% rule" (i.e., how many contributors make up > at least 80% of the commits) we end up with: > > - http://source.squeak.org/39a: 2 contributors (sd, md) > - http://source.squeak.org/310: 1 contributor (edc) > - http://squeaksource.com/Pharo: 2 contributors (sd, md) > - http://squeaksource.com/Seaside30: 3 contributors (lr, jf, pmm) interesting, thanks; but these are all Squeak-ish in some ways. Is there a statistics facility for such questions on SourceForge? Going to look ... Best, Michael |
|
|
Michael Haupt wrote:
> Hi Andreas, > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Easy to find out. Using the "80% rule" (i.e., how many contributors make up >> at least 80% of the commits) we end up with: >> >> - http://source.squeak.org/39a: 2 contributors (sd, md) >> - http://source.squeak.org/310: 1 contributor (edc) >> - http://squeaksource.com/Pharo: 2 contributors (sd, md) >> - http://squeaksource.com/Seaside30: 3 contributors (lr, jf, pmm) > > interesting, thanks; but these are all Squeak-ish in some ways. Is > there a statistics facility for such questions on SourceForge? Going > to look ... Dunno. The only other thing I saw was about Linux kernel development here: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php But these numbers are so out there that they're not comparable. I mean 700+ developers from 90+ companies :-) Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
2010/1/22 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
> Michael Haupt wrote: >> >> BTW I don't know how those numbers look in other, comparable, OSS >> communities. Could it be the same? > > Easy to find out. Using the "80% rule" (i.e., how many contributors make up > at least 80% of the commits) we end up with: > > - http://source.squeak.org/39a: 2 contributors (sd, md) > - http://source.squeak.org/310: 1 contributor (edc) > - http://squeaksource.com/Pharo: 2 contributors (sd, md) > - http://squeaksource.com/Seaside30: 3 contributors (lr, jf, pmm) > > Cheers, > - Andreas > > Even the number of methods changed is an unfair measurement. Each change does not have the same value. The number of features added or improved counts more than the number of methods changed to achieve this goal. Personnaly, I would count number of methods removed or made unloadable/reloadable. Maybe a single change makes 100 methods unloadable. Nicolas |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Hi Andreas,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote: >> interesting, thanks; but these are all Squeak-ish in some ways. Is >> there a statistics facility for such questions on SourceForge? Going >> to look ... > > Dunno. The only other thing I saw was about Linux kernel development here: > > https://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php > > But these numbers are so out there that they're not comparable. I mean 700+ > developers from 90+ companies :-) right ... well, I've just sat down with two students and found some numbers for Rails and Ruby. The Rails numbers were determined from the git repository, so they have to be taken with one or more grains of salt; the Ruby numbers are from SVN. Following the 80 % rule, the Rails community consists of 12 individuals, and so does the Ruby community. I never thought those communities were *so* small given the relevance of Rails and Ruby. Wow. Please forgive the irony, Michael |
|
|
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Michael Haupt wrote:
> I never thought those communities were *so* small given the relevance > of Rails and Ruby. Wow. Clay Shirky has been commenting on this since 2003. Contributions to any open source project follows the same power law distribution. That is the power of open source: The fact that someone makes only one commit to Squeak trunk ever, is of no importance. Whether that fix was a *good* and *useful* fix is what is important. A lot of value is to be had in the long tail :-) For more, watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html Read this: http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html -- Danie Roux *shuffle* Adore Unix - http://danieroux.com |
Planning vs. Coordination (Re: [Cuis] Cuis)
|
|
Danie Roux wrote:
> Clay Shirky has been commenting on this since 2003. Contributions to > any open source project follows the same power law distribution. > > That is the power of open source: The fact that someone makes only one > commit to Squeak trunk ever, is of no importance. > > Whether that fix was a *good* and *useful* fix is what is important. A > lot of value is to be had in the long tail :-) > > For more, watch this: > http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html > Read this: http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html Thank you, thank you, thank you. Folks, this truly is a must-watch. Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
Dear Keith, dear community,
Am 2010-01-22 um 07:46 schrieb keith: > Bob built an LPF image, with MC1.5 etc, on your first 3.10-closures image, you can download it from ftp.squeak.org and I requested feedback or suggestions as to what to do next with it to get the debugger working and got none. Having followed some discussions, I'm curious how and where I can get Bob for using it as auto-Image-builder. Yet I have watched the screencast by you, Keith, I am unable to find a message on -dev or the screencast pointing me to a place where to get it and who to install/use it. So Long, -Tobias |
|
|
In reply to this post by Edgar J. De Cleene
Hi Edgar, As usual I don' t have a clue what you are talking about. The whole point is that I don't know how to load closures although I was one of the first to give the first closures image a try. Asking me to write you a procedure seems a little misplaced. I am pointing out that no one has made that knowledge available in a form that mere mortals like you or I can use, because the "super masters" are establishing and using processes that apply to their own images only. For example, whatever process was used to apply closures to 3.10-basic, could be used to apply closures to 3.9, because they are very similar. Pharo was based upon 3.9, so by analogue, if Stefane made a process for applying closures to 3.9, then he could have used that same process as the basis for adding closures to Pharo, and 3.10, but he chose to only do it for pharo. Whatever process was used to apply closures to 3.8 would also be used to apply closures to cobalt, and etoys. Therefore if you want closures for MinimalMorphic as far as I know you are on your own, and that was my point. Keith |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |