[Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
Locked
123
123
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
 
|
On 3/11/10 6:14 AM, "Michael Haupt" <[hidden email]> wrote: > me and some others in Potsdam ... and quite possibly some more people > elsewhere. > > Best, > > Michael And why you or they do not share with us? Apologize but I do not remember any mails talking about having 3.8 or older things back.... I do not say you or others don't wish have the Great Squeak again as I said many wish. It's why FunSqueak exist before 3.10 was finished. FunSqueak exist as old as FUNSqueak3.10alpha.7070.image, two days after the release start in 2007. I attach the Visitors.obj. How you open in the trunk. Put on the working dir. Open a Worspace | inputStream anObject | inputStream _ FileStream oldFileNamed: 'Visitors.obj'. anObject _ inputStream fileInObjectAndCode. inputStream close. anObject inspect . And you could see who and when use it remote many moons ago. By the way, any of my images opens it via drag and drop and you could do many on the Inspector code pane. Edgar |
Visitors.obj (75K)
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
Hi Edgar,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote: > And why you or they do not share with us? > Apologize but I do not remember any mails talking about having 3.8 or older > things back.... ah sorry, I mis-read your formulation "care about" as "actively do". :-P Best, Michael |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
In reply to this post by Edgar De Cleene
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> > > > On 3/10/10 10:03 PM, "Levente Uzonyi" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> I don't think anyone would like to make new forks in the near future >> (except for Jecel). It's easier to cooperate than to do everything >> on your own. > > I agree. > Hope bring all leanings of SqueakLight and MinimalMorphic to SqueakCore. > Next Monday I publish the first ReleaseReport fot it. > And my hope is , when all help and do not fight, have it as 4.2 in 9 months > from now. > >> I think we are doing it pretty well. > > Disagree. > 1- Each core developer have his own agenda. Is this a problem? Are there any changes that you would like to revert? > 2- Not coordination and no goals, Keith is right on this two points. Goals are pointless if nobody will do anything to reach them. > 3- Many working on 3.10 do not work in trunk. Examples? > 4- Nobody except me care about how we have again the Great Squeak, the Alan > and Dan spirit. > Or at less the equivalent to 3.8 Full image. > 5- Saying we have a great thing shows you don't use for more as business as > usual. I don't know what you're missing. I'm not saying that the Trunk image is perfect, but it's much better than 3.9 or 3.10. Let me copy the goals of the process again from http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/a-new-community-development-model/ "The goals The goal of this process is to get rid of as many hurdles as possible in the contribution process. We are trying to enable the community at large to improve Squeak, the core of the system and its supporting libraries." According to these goals we are doing it pretty well. Levente > > Edgar > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
Excuse me, you are the one who just called my cool working CI server "a failure" how much more negative can you get? Identifying the root of the problem is not negative, it is honest.
You have two things confused here, forgiveness and reconciliation. Forgiveness is about me letting go of what I feel you owe me, which is nothing, so "you are forgiven" - enjoy. I am no longer reliant on squeak or the squeak board for my work, so I have successfully rescued myself from a very painful technical predicament that you placed me in, and I am free, thanks in the most part to cuis. Reconciliation is different, that requires you to actually do something not just shrug your shoulders and say it doesn't matter. I offered you (the board) the route to restoration, and you steadfastly refuse to take it. That is to at least try to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Building your house on sand is never a good idea, so fixing the problem is recommended. This is not for my benefit that I suggested you get a constitution, it was for yours, so that you can restore yourself form your fallen position. The board is still in the same moral gutter that you fell into, because you haven't moved. I didn't say that I would not contribute to squeak unless it had a genuine constitution for no reason. Squeak the community is broken, and will remain broken until you take the first step to fix it. In my counselling experience, an abuser does not stop being an abuser, by being forgiven. If you haven't changed anything then you haven't changed anything. If you think that blaming me helps then fine, but that is like a driver blaming a parked car for his accident. I was sitting at home, minding my own business, and working on the stuff I said I would work on when this all blew up. If this type of situation can happen three times, then it can happen a forth time and a fifth. Bert says that being on the board is like being among friends. That is as maybe, but when you let politics get in the way of friendship, the friendship is either over or it never was. So its time to stop pretending that this is about friendships, we had a good crew on irc for the past three years, along comes Andreas, a relative outsider to the irc crew, ignores all the existing channels, and over-rules. Where was the friendship operating there? A friend would have told him to get stuffed, where was he for the past 3/4 years, he had not contributed a bean to the community, and even the fixes he did contribute was like getting blood out of a stone. Being honest it's about agenda's, and a preference for competing and doing your own stuff rather than putting the effort in to work with others on something. Come on how many people have volunteered to help Edgar in his grand schemes? If they did that would be actual collaboration. Leadership is about helping others to fulfil their visions, not about dictating what the vision is for everyone, and scattering the rest to the four winds. Andreas has the teleplace adenda, and quite simply he wants control of the image, so that it works the way he wants it to. (Btw: How many teleplace employees are candidates for the election?, just curious, before its too late) My agenda was the opposite - to provide tools that you could make the image anything you wanted it to be. One is about control, the other is about liberty. So your answer is no you are not prepared or interested in addressing the failure. Keith |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
On 12 March 2010 01:53, keith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The only failure I saw was a failure of the board to have some minimal > > standards of fairness, humility, communication and respect. Pretty sad state > > of affairs "among friends" I think. > > So having identified the failure, if you are so willing to learn how about > > fixing it, at the point of failure? i.e. the Board and its lack of protocol. > > And while we are talking about failures and fairness, whatever happened to > > Squeak 5.0 Spoon etc? > > K. > > > I applaud your talent on turning everything to negative plane, leaving > all positive moments behind. > > Excuse me, you are the one who just called my cool working CI server "a > failure" how much more negative can you get? > Identifying the root of the problem is not negative, it is honest. > > I'm sorry, but i can't answer in same manner to you, because i know > that we all doing a painful mistakes sometimes. > > And people who doing them, deserve to be forgiven. > > You have two things confused here, forgiveness and reconciliation. > Forgiveness is about me letting go of what I feel you owe me, which is > nothing, so "you are forgiven" - enjoy. I am no longer reliant on squeak or > the squeak board for my work, so I have successfully rescued myself from a > very painful technical predicament that you placed me in, and I am free, > thanks in the most part to cuis. > Reconciliation is different, that requires you to actually do something not > just shrug your shoulders and say it doesn't matter. I offered you (the > board) the route to restoration, and you steadfastly refuse to take it. That > is to at least try to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Huh.. Reconciliation you say? So it is board, who refused to meet with you in order to lower a tension levels and find a compromise? > Building your house on sand is never a good idea, so fixing the problem is > recommended. This is not for my benefit that I suggested you get a > constitution, it was for yours, so that you can restore yourself form your > fallen position. The board is still in the same moral gutter that you fell > into, because you haven't moved. I didn't say that I would not contribute to > squeak unless it had a genuine constitution for no reason. Squeak the > community is broken, and will remain broken until you take the first step to > fix it. I haven't moved? But who discussed these 'Terms of Reference' with you and then brought that topic to board first and then to community? What else you want from me? Join the labor movement to protect your rights against so-called 'noobs' and other nerds who not interested in even discussing these terms, because they think its pointless? > In my counselling experience, an abuser does not stop being an abuser, by > being forgiven. If you haven't changed anything then you haven't changed > anything. Right. But you forgetting one thing: compromise requires movement from both sides. But you prefer to stay and wait, and keep vocalizing same things over and over. Good, then please, don't blame anyone that people prefer to keep moving, leaving you behind. > If you think that blaming me helps then fine, but that is like a driver > blaming a parked car for his accident. I was sitting at home, minding my own > business, and working on the stuff I said I would work on when this all blew > up. > If this type of situation can happen three times, then it can happen a forth > time and a fifth. It will happen each time, when you will be sitting at home , minding your own business, while people around expecting you to move forward, or at least pay attention to their needs. But instead you putting a 'noob' label on everyone, and keep sitting, marking yourself as the only one who deserves to decide in what direction and in what way Squeak should evolve. Or maybe it is board members, who did as much as they can to make sure that none of your ideas is heard and understood by community _before_ changing the development process? > Bert says that being on the board is like being among friends. That is as > maybe, but when you let politics get in the way of friendship, the > friendship is either over or it never was. So its time to stop pretending > that this is about friendships, we had a good crew on irc for the past three > years, along comes Andreas, a relative outsider to the irc crew, ignores all > the existing channels, and over-rules. Where was the friendship operating > there? A friend would have told him to get stuffed, where was he for the > past 3/4 years, he had not contributed a bean to the community, and even the > fixes he did contribute was like getting blood out of a stone. > Being honest it's about agenda's, and a preference for competing and doing > your own stuff rather than putting the effort in to work with others on > something. Again, this bullshit about Andreas. Please, let the rest from your fantasies. > Come on how many people have volunteered to help Edgar in his grand schemes? > If they did that would be actual collaboration. Leadership is about helping > others to fulfil their visions, not about dictating what the vision is for > everyone, and scattering the rest to the four winds. > Andreas has the teleplace adenda, and quite simply he wants control of the > image, so that it works the way he wants it to. (Btw: How many teleplace > employees are candidates for the election?, just curious, before its too > late) And then they will come to your house and ask you to let them in! Run before too late. > My agenda was the opposite - to provide tools that you could make the image > anything you wanted it to be. One is about control, the other is about > liberty. Good and keep stick with that. > So your answer is no you are not prepared or interested in addressing the > failure. The answer will be no as long as you keep offending people who helped you in the past and tried to not let your ideas to be forgotten and get killed. > Keith > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
On 12.03.2010, at 00:53, keith wrote:
> > Bert says that being on the board is like being among friends. That's not quite what I said, I was talking about the whole community, not just the board. > we had a good crew on irc for the past three years, along comes Andreas, a relative outsider to the irc crew, ignores all the existing channels, and over-rules. You were constructing an alternate reality on IRC that still is alien to the Squeak community. It may feel like home to you, but you apparently do not care about what the majority of us feels comfortable with. You want to move Squeak to be more like other open-source communities. I can understand that desire, because I'm also active in other open-source projects. I love my command line, git, shell scripts, etc. But many others here just don't have your IRC/unix/script/bazaar background. Few even know well-managed open-source projects. Preferably with a clean license from the beginning. Etc. So I see why you insist that your way would be better, and you may even be right. But I'm also part of this community for a dozen plus years and know it's not going to follow you on a whim. This community is different, for better and worse. > Where was the friendship operating there? A friend would have told him to get stuffed, where was he for the past 3/4 years, he had not contributed a bean to the community, and even the fixes he did contribute was like getting blood out of a stone. I'm quite happy to meet friends I haven't seen in years. Doesn't hurt the friendship a bit. - Bert - |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
On 3/11/2010 3:53 PM, keith wrote:
> If this type of situation can happen three times, then it can happen a > forth time and a fifth. Three times? Care to elaborate? > Bert says that being on the board is like being among friends. That is > as maybe, but when you let politics get in the way of friendship, the > friendship is either over or it never was. So its time to stop > pretending that this is about friendships, we had a good crew on irc for > the past three years, along comes Andreas, a relative outsider to the > irc crew, ignores all the existing channels, and over-rules. Where was > the friendship operating there? A friend would have told him to get > stuffed, where was he for the past 3/4 years, he had not contributed a > bean to the community, and even the fixes he did contribute was like > getting blood out of a stone. And what exactly does that mean? That I'm sitting on all of these great fixes that I won't give to you? Man, you're pathetic. > Andreas has the teleplace adenda, and quite simply he wants control of > the image, so that it works the way he wants it to. (Btw: How many > teleplace employees are candidates for the election?, just curious, > before its too late) Craig and Myself. Teleplace has had consulting contracts with Bert and Igor in the past but nothing within the last year if I recall correctly. As for what I want, why would I want control of the image? That seems like the oddest desire ever :-) Given that I've spent a lot of time making things reloadable wouldn't that also be contrary to the alleged purpose of controlling the image? My real long-term goal is to enable the Squeak community to be a feasible open source community, to be self-sufficient in its development, to avoid relying on only one or two key contributors, to be able to survive a key contributor to drop out. That's why I'm trying to channel the energy back into Squeak.org by encouraging projects like Croquet and Etoys to move back on top of Squeak.org; that's why I'm seeing Cuis at one end of the spectrum that we need to support (cf. the recent discussions about Cuis and Squeak being supersets one way or the other) and if it weren't for personal animosity I'd be trying to convince Pharo to join the effort as well. That's also why I'm trying to broaden the base of core developers and that's why I feel that collaborating on a shared artifact (the trunk) is the right direction forward. All of the projects have a role in the grand scheme. They're all Squeak and if we split our efforts five-ways nobody is going to win. We need a strong development base -Squeak- and from there we have the various directions and environments, Etoys, Croquet, Cuis, Seaside, Pharo, you name it. > My agenda was the opposite - to provide tools that you could make the > image anything you wanted it to be. One is about control, the other is > about liberty. No, the former is about collaboration on a shared artifact. If you think I'm "controlling" the trunk please provide an example for how exactly I'm doing that in your opinion. Cheers, - Andreas |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
On 12.03.2010, at 02:40, Andreas Raab wrote:
> > On 3/11/2010 3:53 PM, keith wrote: >> (Btw: How many >> teleplace employees are candidates for the election?, just curious, >> before its too late) > > Craig and Myself. Teleplace has had consulting contracts with Bert and Igor in the past but nothing within the last year if I recall correctly. Correct. Since 2006 I'm a freelancer, based in Magdeburg, Germany. My main client is VPRI which takes up pretty much my full time. But I'm available for smaller contracting jobs. Qwaq (now Teleplace) contracted me for a total of 2 weeks in 2007 and less than a week in 2008. I've done a few other gigs of similar scale, the latest one is for Scratch (contracting for OLPC). If you're curious read the mail archive at https://launchpad.net/~scratch The bulk of Squeak work I'm doing now is voluntary. VPRI paid me for the OLPC Etoys port until 2008. Now it's just my spare time, like all the other Etoys developers. Oh, here is one for conspiracy theorists: I'm the ombudsman for SugarLabs since 2008. Sugar is mainly implemented in Python. Now if *that* is not conspicuous ;) - Bert - |
RE: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
Hi All,
I've been reading through this thread and have a comment. There is nothing in the trunk development method that prevents Keith from continuing to work on Bob or LPF. The trunk development method allows us to get faster integration of some excellent work. Maybe in the future when the fury of work that is going on in Squeak right now settles down we will need a less risky method of gathering and releasing changes. Why couldn't Bob harvest changes from Mantis so they can be reviewed and posted to trunk? Maybe I'm just missing something here but I don't want to miss the work that Andreas and Eliot and a host of others are offering and I don't want to scare off non core developers from making changes if they are inspired to do so via mantis. I believe with some careful consideration we can all come to the logical conclusion that this whole conspiracy theory was a conspiracy. How about we get back to work? All the best, Ron Teitelbaum (Disclosure: I work for Teleplace but the opinions are my own) > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev- > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bert Freudenberg > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:15 PM > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list > Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info > > On 12.03.2010, at 00:53, keith wrote: > > > > Bert says that being on the board is like being among friends. > > That's not quite what I said, I was talking about the whole community, not > just the board. > > > we had a good crew on irc for the past three years, along comes Andreas, > a relative outsider to the irc crew, ignores all the existing channels, > and over-rules. > > You were constructing an alternate reality on IRC that still is alien to > the Squeak community. It may feel like home to you, but you apparently do > not care about what the majority of us feels comfortable with. > > You want to move Squeak to be more like other open-source communities. I > can understand that desire, because I'm also active in other open-source > projects. I love my command line, git, shell scripts, etc. But many others > here just don't have your IRC/unix/script/bazaar background. Few even know > well-managed open-source projects. Preferably with a clean license from > the beginning. Etc. > > So I see why you insist that your way would be better, and you may even be > right. But I'm also part of this community for a dozen plus years and know > it's not going to follow you on a whim. This community is different, for > better and worse. > > > Where was the friendship operating there? A friend would have told him > to get stuffed, where was he for the past 3/4 years, he had not > contributed a bean to the community, and even the fixes he did contribute > was like getting blood out of a stone. > > I'm quite happy to meet friends I haven't seen in years. Doesn't hurt the > friendship a bit. > > - Bert - > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
1) Firstly there is the question of what changes to squeak are possible with the trunk method and what changes are not. My method allowed any changes, the trunk method prevents me (and edgar it seems) from participating. I object strongly to this. If you want to give the community a familiar method then fine, but that familiar method will have to be an update stream of changesets. If you were to use that familiar method I would be all for it, anything but trunk. In case you didn't realise that was what the bob2 method consisted of at the end of the day, conceptually it was a series of changesets, that could do anything to any image. MC was used to publish the result afterwards. See, no mention of git bazaar or anything. 2) The second issue is that of respect. For someone to turn around and say to edgar ".. but you don't have to use squeak" is really quite offensive to me, because Edgar is a pillar of this community, and so the development methods we use should support him not shut him out. Squeak is not just the image... We had a series of tools, including LPF that made squeak a much better place to work, you could install things reliably including dependencies. I regularly installed Magma Seaside Scriptaculous Magritte and Pier in a one liner. For someone to come along who doesnt appreciate that squeak had moved forward considerably in the period they had been away, and then discard all progress, and actually break things for us, is similarly rude. Fix the respect issue, and fix the contribution barrier issue and you might move forward. It has nothing to do with "my way", my way is just a technical way forward I am using to personally extract myself out of this mess. regards Keith |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
On 12.03.2010, at 17:09, keith wrote:
> >> So I see why you insist that your way would be better, and you may even be right. But I'm also part of this community for a dozen plus years and know it's not going to follow you on a whim. This community is different, for better and worse. > > For someone to turn around and say to edgar ".. but you don't have to use squeak" is really quite offensive That is true, and I hope Edgar doesn't take it too seriously. Fact is the endlessly repeating discussion you are dragging us into is not healthy to the community. It's getting on everyones nerves. It was just a matter of time until someone snapped and wrote rude things. I thought with Cuis you had found a model that works better for you. Do you really need to continue bothering us when by now it's clear the discussion just wastes everybody's time? If you really wanted to engage in this community you would have ample opportunity. If you feel you can't, then don't. But *please* stop these useless discussions. - Bert - |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:09 AM, keith wrote:
Come on now, the majority of what you write is to insist that your way will be better. There are whole threads of you insisting that your way is better. You have made progress toward a "manifesto" about how your way is better. Keith, people are trying to meet you half-way. In this case Bert made an empathetic statement. It looks to me like you read his statement and couldn't help yourself: finding nothing reasonable to contradict you just picked something and contradicted it anyway. This is not constructive behavior. It causes frustration for those who try to meet you half-way. I know that I have lost patience with you occasionally, and my words have showed my annoyance; I'm sorry for that (it will probably happen again). But please try to realize that your behavior plays a large part in this too.
... and in practically the next sentence, you say that your way is better. Cheers, Josh |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Hi Andreas,
The particular one I remember was the scroll list fix, where you piped up "oh I fixed that years ago", and you had the fix in your fork-image but had not fed it back to the community. Check your emails, I emailed you in 2006 complaining that you were not sharing fixes back to the community. Soon after, for whatever reason, you then started to feed back process fixes for servers, and the situation got better.
A feasible open source community! And you demonstrate this by ignoring all the community things that were already decided, because you know better, like for example using the "release list" and irc, and the decision not to work in a monolithic image style and so on. Technically speaking squeak had no package management tools, no ability to build images without severe pain, no testing server, and every image the release team produces is abandonware. That was in 2006. In 2009 we had LPF and mantis actively supporting older images, we had Installer, Sake/Packages for package management, SUnit-improved for running test suites form the command line, and MC1.5 which allowed you to use package overrides, and to work in more complex installation situations. It was all working reasonably well. Bob was up and running in Feb, building "dev" images, and we were ready to begin a monthly release cycle and were looking pretty good. We provided tools, with several years worth of work, which the trunk process threw away. You come along 3 months later and say... oh we will need package management, but we haven't thought about it yet. What? That is so obvious we thought of it first and we implemented it. You think a back of the fag packet idea of using a shared repository makes a release process? I don't think so. Especially when your back of a fag packet idea actively stops people (like myself and apparently edgar) from contributing. Conceptually your way of working is to use a single monolithic image. Three years ago, we decided that this was no longer the way forward. Your monolithic approach is there in stone until you actually have a package management solution. Only when you have a package management solution can a project like Magma load into a kernel image, knowing where to find the missing pieces. As a solution for building a production image, squeak has gone back three years, and "trunk" breaks the process that I do have. So a viable feasible oss community, whose leaders institute processes that break your work, without prior consultation, I don't think so.
Key contributors are not able to use the trunk process at all. Before you need to survive contributor drop out, you need to appreciate the contributors that you do have and develop a process which can harness their contributions. (In case you didnt know, that was the raison d'etre for bob.) Contributors are not dropping out, they are being forced to leave and then people say "... oh but you don't have to use squeak" -- bloody cheek if you ask me. Since I was arguably the largest contributor to "squeak the core development tool" over the past three years, I think you would do better to work on your "contributor pissing off rate", that is not a technical problem, that would be a personal, social community problem. We saw this happen once before with Pharo (who was it who pissed them off and why?) and we don't want it to happen again. What is conceptually different from your way of working and the pharo way of working... nothing that I can see. Pharo is also a monolithic image under the control of one or two people. If we liked the pharo model we would go there, but we don't. So please dont give us the pharo model.
Well it isn't, because trunk is a barrier to contribution, because it it pitched at too high a level, that is why bob used ChangeSets. Secondly the image need to be split up into parts that can be integrated, the idea of having one monolithic artefact is a hugely backward step. I offered you a compromise, that compromise was to not use one monolithic repository, but to package separate innovations separately, i.e Compiler is a separate integratable piece. Produce a compiler version 1.0.0 and enable others to load and integrate it. I will produce a changes/sources 1.0 soon enough. etc etc.
You are the one splitting the efforts. You force the issue by making everyone sing the one tune, "trunk", and leaving the rest of us by the way side. If I can pick up the stragglers I will, but sooner or later you will have more stragglers than you do have contributors. Note I haven't seen a single contribution to trunk that I actually need for my work, its all nice to have stuff. Yet you threw away a bunch of essential bits and pieces to get there. Package management is not an optional extra to add when you feel like it, it is a pre-requisite to any coherent solution of integrated parts.
The strong development base comes form the community that can work together. Squeak was undermined by you, not appreciating the contributions and the effort and the investment that had already been done. Your back of a fag packet idea, only develops one artefact, that is divisive, it forces people to make the choice. My back of a fag packet idea, that I am using in cuis, develops all artefacts, including pharo. (so did bob)
1) One email to squeak-dev saying "here is the new development process", when actually we had a development process already. 2) "trunk" is not a place I can publish my new sources/changes stuff until it meets your requirements, (trust me it will break) What if I want to provide 3 different solutions to the sources/changes issues. Trunk can only cope with one at a time. You see? It is divisive it is not offering people choices, it is offering them your choice on their behalf. regards Keith |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:09 AM, keith <[hidden email]> wrote:
You're simply wrong on this. Â I, with help from others, managed to get the closure compiler into several dialects quite recently and I can assure you that changing the compiler under one's feet is tricky. Â There is nothing inherent in the trunk model that hinders difficult change. Â A coordinated series of package updates is just as powerful as changesets. Â One simply has to try and try again because one will make mistakes and the system will break and one will be able to discover why and compensate. Â Don't confuse the medium with the message. Â Change sets and MC packages are media but they can convey many messages. Â Eventually one gets to a depth at which these media fail to do the whole job (for example changing the object format, bytecode set etc). Â But Smalltalk's reflective nature is what makes both of these media equally powerful and equally unsafe. Â If you want to make deep changes you simply have to be prepared to fail, to be confused, to be persistent and then to be enlightened (often through conversations with friends). Â It's a fun path; more fun and productive than endlessly whining.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum
Bob isnt only about harvesting fixes. 2) If you are the developer of a package that loads in all forks, you are supported by the ability to load fixes into the other forks you support. The trunk process doesn't care about supporting you to keep your package working. Every change made to trunk is made to trunk only, the implications on that change to the packages that you may wish to load is not tested. That is what bob was designed to do, to test the whole, and to test all derived images. 2) The bob process is intended to be used in regular cycles, to generate multiple artifacts, that may then be integrated. Trunk messes this up by prolonging the release cycle to years to produce one artifact. Keith |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum
On 3/12/10 1:49 PM, "Ron Teitelbaum" <[hidden email]> wrote: > Maybe in the future when the fury of > work that is going on in Squeak right now settles down we will need a less > risky method of gathering and releasing changes. It's on my agenda as soon 4.0 is out and I begin to manage the Release. > Maybe I'm just missing something here but I don't want to miss the work that > Andreas and Eliot and a host of others are offering and I don't want to > scare off non core developers from making changes if they are inspired to do > so via mantis. We don't lose they. We won more people as I wish go to two ways model, plain old .cs and trunk. All going to 4.1 must follow Ralph quality rules for 3.10. > Ron Teitelbaum > (Disclosure: I work for Teleplace but the opinions are my own) Lucky you !! If Teleplace hope to win, should think in talented students here in Rosario. I have some prospects... Edgar |
RE: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
Hi Keith, Thank you for your response. In that case I understand your
point. Your method is intended to be used for two purposes. Just to
be clear we can name them. 1) Allow developers to post a fix to a specific stable image. Bob
then: 2) Runs
tests to identify fixes needed in other images. (Go back to 1) I see this as a very nice feedback loop
that finds issues and provides a methodology to address specific problems.
From the responses I read it appears that
your solution does not work well for creating that stable image. We are
working on creating stable images using a method that is similar to the trunk
system. It works because it gives you a very fast feedback loop for
development, but I agree it only works when you put it into the hands of
developers you trust. The fact that the trunk system is taking a
long time can be attributed to how difficult the changes are. The changes
that are going in are monumental. If you were to add overhead to the work
that is currently going on I don’t think it would get done at all. So if you can remove your last point we
agree. Your method works well to support developers that are interested
in a methodology to find and fix problems to stable images because that is what
it does: it helps them to find and address specific problems. The fact that the extra overhead involved
to use this method for development is not supported by the community, I believe,
is a direct result of trying to apply this method to something that you just
said doesn’t work. Consider the current trunk as a single
contribution that is being generated by a team. The team decided to work
together to accomplish something. When that is done you will have your
stable “non moving target” image. At that point I believe the
community would see the value of the proposal outweighs the overhead involved
in using it (if it works). With respect, Ron Teitelbaum From:
[hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of keith
1) Because trunk is a moving target. The principle is that mantis needs
to manage fixes relative to an actual release. So that you can take a
production image and fix bits you need to to keep current. If you are
harvesting fixes from mantis into trunk then you will be adjusting the fixes to
be appropriate to "trunk" (a moving target). Bob isnt only about harvesting fixes. 2) If you are the developer of a package that loads in all forks, you
are supported by the ability to load fixes into the other forks you support.
The trunk process doesn't care about supporting you to keep your package
working. Every change made to trunk is made to trunk only, the implications on
that change to the packages that you may wish to load is not tested. That is
what bob was designed to do, to test the whole, and to test all derived images. 2) The bob process is
intended to be used in regular cycles, to generate multiple artifacts, that may
then be integrated. Trunk messes this up by prolonging the release cycle to
years to produce one artifact. Keith |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
2010/3/12 keith <[hidden email]>:
> Why couldn't Bob harvest changes from Mantis so they can be reviewed and > posted to trunk? > > 1) Because trunk is a moving target. The principle is that mantis needs to > manage fixes relative to an actual release. So that you can take a > production image and fix bits you need to to keep current. If you are > harvesting fixes from mantis into trunk then you will be adjusting the fixes > to be appropriate to "trunk" (a moving target). > Bob isnt only about harvesting fixes. but Keith, Mantis fixes of Kernel are dead code. If you don't load AND MAINTAIN them in an image, they die. Why can't you realize that ? I don't know in which language I could explain it to you... > 2) If you are the developer of a package that loads in all forks, you are > supported by the ability to load fixes into the other forks you support. The > trunk process doesn't care about supporting you to keep your package > working. > Every change made to trunk is made to trunk only, the implications on that > change to the packages that you may wish to load is not tested. That is what > bob was designed to do, to test the whole, and to test all derived images. It depends whether we change API or internal implementation... If packages depend on internal implementation, then they are not what I would call modular, and they must improve. API does not change gratuitously. Whenever it has to, we warn and ask in squeak-dev. We should probably record these precious informations as well as more or less automated rewrite rules. > 2) The bob process is intended to be used in regular cycles, to generate > multiple artifacts, that may then be integrated. Trunk messes this up by > prolonging the release cycle to years to produce one artifact. > I still do not understand. Since you have Bob with automated tests, you should know very well when and why a package breaks against trunk. You can then signal it to squeak-dev and ask for (multiple choice): - reverting a change, - providing a backward compatibility hook, - ask for support for upgrading the packages you use/maintain Or just DIY. Keith, that would be added value, really. Every one has a chance to collaborate in trunk, and sure technical details are discused and listened... (Well, I should say when you don't occupy to much band width with political dead ends) I can imagine a couple Edgar+Keith regularly reporting what works, what breaks and discuss the solution here. Alas... I see you're not cured yet. Nicolas > Keith > > > |
Re: [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
|
|
In reply to this post by Edgar De Cleene
2010/3/12 Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]>:
> > > > On 3/12/10 1:49 PM, "Ron Teitelbaum" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Maybe in the future when the fury of >> work that is going on in Squeak right now settles down we will need a less >> risky method of gathering and releasing changes. > > It's on my agenda as soon 4.0 is out and I begin to manage the Release. > >> Maybe I'm just missing something here but I don't want to miss the work that >> Andreas and Eliot and a host of others are offering and I don't want to >> scare off non core developers from making changes if they are inspired to do >> so via mantis. > > We don't lose they. > We won more people as I wish go to two ways model, plain old .cs and trunk. > All going to 4.1 must follow Ralph quality rules for 3.10. > Ouch! Then don't load closures, they break a bunch of tests ;) I thought the model was more like: - take a trunk mcm as starting point - concentrate on fixing failures and errors - mark irreductible as knowFailures - select which pachages to remove to make a core image - try fixing cycle again after unloading many packages -> Core - select which pachages to add to make a full image - try fixing cycle again after loading many packages -> Full No ? That said, I don't see so many tests failing in trunk. Nicolas > >> Ron Teitelbaum >> (Disclosure: I work for Teleplace but the opinions are my own) > > Lucky you !! > If Teleplace hope to win, should think in talented students here in Rosario. > I have some prospects... > > Edgar > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Josh Gargus
Not at all, I have two main points... 1) the board has no constitution, and 2) trunk is the worst possible process you could have chosen, because a) it isn't a process it is an excuse to group-hack a monolithic image b) the philosophy behind trunk is the opposite of where we want to go, monolithic vs support all forks with a kernel you can build on. c) moving targets are the worst possible scenario. d) it uses tools that are too high level. e) it is release a year rather then release a month f) it relies on an elite to manage it g) it closes out people who cant change things without breaking it. You keep using trunk, and you close me out. So far there has been one useful contributor to trunk, and that was when Torsten posted a changeset to this list, and I used it. The fact that I can knock up a brand new process in less than a week which is better than trunk, simply shows how bad it is. regards Keith |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |