[ExperimentalCoreRelease] PharoCore-1.0-10508rc2 vs SL3dot11-9499-alpha

On 3/12/2010 2:34 AM, Michael Davies wrote:
Consistency. There is no consistent style to the UI. BTW, don't get me
wrong, I *like* Squeak. I like all its little quirks, funky colors,
everything. I'm just not kidding myself that if someone who isn't used
to Squeak looks at it and looks at Pharo, they'd most likely say Pharo
has an edge with Polymorph.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

>> ong comes a new process which shuts him out from contributing to  
>> squeak, as it has me, and we are told...
>
> Bullshit.
>

Ok, question 1, how do I load MC1.5 into trunk? without breaking it?  
I need features of MC1.5.

Question 2, My sources/changes innovation, is going to be produced and  
managed in an external repository, this is where the the code is going  
to develop and evolve.

Trunk doesn't have an integration step, trunk doesn't have a package  
management solution that manages anything external to trunk. Say I  
have 3 experiments going, for different sources/changes history  
mechanisms, how does trunk allow me to publish them and provide them  
as options to users to pick for their image?

I can upload a solution to trunk, but only one solution, and then only  
when it is finished and perfect, but for people like me, my code is  
never finished and perfect so it will be a while. By the time I have  
done it, trunk will have moved on and left me behind.

When my solution is loaded into trunk where is the primary repo for  
managing my code, is it trunk, where anyone could change something? I  
would rather gather a team of interested people around the repo  
externally and have it integrated into a release periodically.

"trunk" is conceptually a repository for one monolithic image, and it  
is not the image I want. If I contribute something it will probably  
not be the image you want, and the trunk process is very fragile, and  
only moves forwards.

When i develop I don't move forwards all the time, it is just not  
natural.

Keith

 

On 3/12/10 1:42 PM, "Josh Gargus" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nope.
For this I could re do all and found the point of break.
I don't use it to much, but shows the trunk breaks.
You use SM with trunk? Also break.
I don't care as SM is obsolete for years and is one of the unneeded loaders
for SqueakCore.

Saying the trunk do not break only shows you don't use too much :=)


Edgar

On 3/12/10 2:25 PM, "Levente Uzonyi" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I feel like
> our hard work worth nothing to him.
Not so. Not think such a thing

You Smalltalk is amazing and I invite you friendly to be in the team .
The answer was no.
All hard workers have my gratitude.
But the point is they have Core , good or bad, and we not.


About Gofer , seems good, do not have final opinion as I do not use Pharo.
Only tons of prays from fine Squeakers drive me to see what the Pharopatas
have.

Off topic and sharing feelings.

I like formula one cars.
Once I beg Board have "the next season rules".
Tomorrow we start to know who uses the rules better.
Ferrari ? McLaren ? Mercedes ? Red Bull ?

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/10396.html


Each team probably try to steal what they think others have better

I'm back in the best of all times team which is Ferrari.

Last year winner PharoCore car soon was behind our SqueakCore car
I count with you skill and all the others Squeakers.

See in Bahrein :=)

2010/3/12 Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]>:
Hi Edgar,
don't try it's superhuman boring task.
Rather the task for an automated tool like Bob like I answered to
Keith, but I presume he is ot interested in progress, he told us so.

Nicolas

On 3/12/10 6:07 PM, "Nicolas Cellier" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Edgar,
> don't try it's superhuman boring task.
> Rather the task for an automated tool like Bob like I answered to
> Keith, but I presume he is ot interested in progress, he told us so.
>
> Nicolas

Thanks !
Fear not , I don't try superhuman boring task.
Instead try as much as I can to have FunSqueak and use all lazy man ways.

Cheers.

Edgar

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, keith wrote:

>>> ong comes a new process which shuts him out from contributing to squeak,
>>> as it has me, and we are told...
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>
> Ok, question 1, how do I load MC1.5 into trunk? without breaking it?  I need
> features of MC1.5.

Try LPF, we integrated all but one fixes which were added by the 3.10.2
script: http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7423
(I think you just asked this question to tell me that MC can't load
itself.) IMHO it's just a question of integration technique. We could
change lots of "core" classes without breaking the image.

Squeaksource, the Inbox, your own repository. If you paste an Installer
script here, people will load it.

> I can upload a solution to trunk, but only one solution, and then only when
> it is finished and perfect, but for people like me, my code is never finished
> and perfect so it will be a while. By the time I have done it, trunk will
> have moved on and left me behind.
>

Keep up with the changes, follow discussions. Even though some people
think that ad-hoc changes are going into the trunk, changes with wide
range side effects are discussed here before added.
You don't have to load perfect code, but it has to keep working while it's
evolving.

> When my solution is loaded into trunk where is the primary repo for managing
> my code, is it trunk, where anyone could change something? I would rather
> gather a team of interested people around the repo externally and have it
> integrated into a release periodically.

We will have an official release until then MCM's are the mini releases.
And yes, everyone can change your code, it's an open source project.

>
> "trunk" is conceptually a repository for one monolithic image, and it is not
> the image I want. If I contribute something it will probably not be the image
> you want, and the trunk process is very fragile, and only moves forwards.

What's wrong with going forward? How is it fragile?

>
> When i develop I don't move forwards all the time, it is just not natural.
>

Do you revert code periodically to avoid going forward all the time or
what?


Levente

> Keith
>
>

On 12 March 2010 20:44, keith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Keith, you are right, what can i say.
But the problem is much broader than trunk per se. And it is not only
the Squeak/smalltalk who meets such problem.
If you change the way how system works, change the protocols and
interactions, inevitably any code which depending on using old way is
doomed to fail.
So, what is the point in stating obvious?
Do you have a concept which completely avoids all of the problems
related to system evolution, made by a different (groups) of people at
different points in time, in different directions, often solving the
same problem using different approach?

> Keith
>
>
>



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

On 3/12/2010 12:31 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> Try LPF, we integrated all but one fixes which were added by the 3.10.2
> script: http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7423
> (I think you just asked this question to tell me that MC can't load
> itself.) IMHO it's just a question of integration technique. We could
> change lots of "core" classes without breaking the image.

Indeed. It's not even hard. All you need is a small script that does
something like this:

"Unload old Monticello"
(PackageInfo named: 'Monticello') classes do:[:cls| cls removeFromSystem].

"Install new version"
((ZipArchive new readFrom:
        (HTTPSocket httpGet:
'http://www.squeaksource.com/mc/Monticello-<yourversionhere>.mcz'))
        memberNamed: 'snapshot/source.st') contentStream fileIn.

This can be easily fudged into a little script  that the old MC version
receives, processes asynchronously, and as a result replaces itself by a
newer version.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 12 March 2010 22:43, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote: except from dozens of extension methods, which will keep sitting in image.


> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

We will have a Core release when 4.1 will be released. PharoCore is still
Beta. And I think we shouldn't try to compete with Pharo in the "who will
release a core image first" game, Pharo has ~1.5 years advantage.

>
>
> About Gofer , seems good, do not have final opinion as I do not use Pharo.
> Only tons of prays from fine Squeakers drive me to see what the Pharopatas
> have.

Gofer is a good tool, but we have Installer already in the image, and
they have overlapping features. We should make sure that Gofer can be
loaded into Squeak, but I don't think we should add it to the Trunk. IMHO
all packages which have active maintainers who are willing to cooperate
could be moved out of the Trunk.


Levente

At 3:21 AM +0100 3/13/10, Levente Uzonyi apparently wrote:
Installer is being actively maintained externally. There were recently some bug fixes from someone on the Pharo list. Installer fixes in trunk have NOT to my knowledge been put in the Installer repo = lose, lose.

Ken G. Brown

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote:

> Installer is being actively maintained externally. There were recently some bug fixes from someone on the Pharo list. Installer fixes in trunk have NOT to my knowledge been put in the Installer repo = lose, lose.

Who is the maintainer? Can we cooperate with him? Why are the commit
messages empty from Installer-Core-nm.335 to Installer-Core-nm.349?
The changes are not lost, they can be merged them back to the squeaksource
repository. Feel free to do it if you think they are useful.

Btw the repository is in a bad shape:
"The currently blessed version of package 'Installer-Core' is
Installer-Core-kph.92.mcz"
And the repo is full of unrelated packages.


Levente

>
> Ken G. Brown
>

On 3/13/10 12:21 AM, "Levente Uzonyi" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We will have a Core release when 4.1 will be released.
Well , if we do not work for having it ....

> I don't think we should add it to the Trunk.
I say 'they have Gofer'
No 'we must have Gofer'

> all packages which have active maintainers who are willing to cooperate
> could be moved out of the Trunk.
Ok.
You realize 3.10 was the first step for it?
And what the procedure Andreas take to present begins with
ReleaseBuilderFor3dot11 ?

Name: ReleaseBuilder-edc.11
Author: edc
Time: 8 March 2007, 9:30:05 am

So seems I know my business for a long time
> Pharo has ~1.5 years advantage.

Yes , because we JustTalk two years or more.
And was Board fail to wake of siesta and do some.

And I'm not Keith so end of this discussion.

Edgar

At 3:51 AM +0100 3/13/10, Levente Uzonyi apparently wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote:
>
>>Installer is being actively maintained externally. There were recently some bug fixes from someone on the Pharo list. Installer fixes in trunk have NOT to my knowledge been put in the Installer repo = lose, lose.
>
>Who is the maintainer? Can we cooperate with him?

Is public commit as far as I know.

>Why are the commit messages empty from Installer-Core-nm.335 to Installer-Core-nm.349?

I don't know.
>From what I understand 3.10.2 was released with an old version of Installer.
I think the latest version of Installer and related was installed by installing LPF, but I believe then you would then have the latest MC1.5/1.6 too.
Trunk seems to have started with ancient Installer and MC.

>The changes are not lost, they can be merged them back to the squeaksource repository. Feel free to do it if you think they are useful.

Those that are working on the package would obviously then want to commit to the repo to keep the repo up to date.

>Btw the repository is in a bad shape:
>"The currently blessed version of package 'Installer-Core' is Installer-Core-kph.92.mcz"
>And the repo is full of unrelated packages.

No doubt the packages are related in some way.
Sounds like some things could be cleaned up.

Ken G. Brown

>
>Levente
>
>>
>>Ken G. Brown

On 3/13/10 12:34 AM, "Ken G. Brown" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Installer is being actively maintained externally. There were recently some
> bug fixes from someone on the Pharo list. Installer fixes in trunk have NOT to
> my knowledge been put in the Installer repo = lose, lose.
>
> Ken G. Brown
 I don't need it.
Read http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6148
>> My proposal as in list
>>  unloadSomeMore
>> " ReleaseBuilderFor3dot11 new unloadSomeMore"
>> #('SMLoader' 'SMBase'  'ScriptLoader' 'Universes' 'Installer'  )
>>        do: [:ea | (MCPackage named: ea) unload].
>>        self fixObsoleteReferences

Why I put pages in swiki if nobody reads ?

3.11 as community work is the title.
Not "Lone Ranger rides again"

Edgar

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote:

> At 3:51 AM +0100 3/13/10, Levente Uzonyi apparently wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Installer is being actively maintained externally. There were recently some bug fixes from someone on the Pharo list. Installer fixes in trunk have NOT to my knowledge been put in the Installer repo = lose, lose.
>>
>> Who is the maintainer? Can we cooperate with him?
>
> Is public commit as far as I know.

So there is no maintainer.

>
>> Why are the commit messages empty from Installer-Core-nm.335 to Installer-Core-nm.349?
>
> I don't know.
>> From what I understand 3.10.2 was released with an old version of Installer.
> I think the latest version of Installer and related was installed by installing LPF, but I believe then you would then have the latest MC1.5/1.6 too.
> Trunk seems to have started with ancient Installer and MC.
>

IIRC Matthew recently loaded the then-latest Installer-Core to the Trunk.

>> The changes are not lost, they can be merged them back to the squeaksource repository. Feel free to do it if you think they are useful.
>
> Those that are working on the package would obviously then want to commit to the repo to keep the repo up to date.
>
>> Btw the repository is in a bad shape:
>> "The currently blessed version of package 'Installer-Core' is Installer-Core-kph.92.mcz"
>> And the repo is full of unrelated packages.
>
> No doubt the packages are related in some way.

You mean that CollectionsTests, DrGeoII, KernelTests, Split-Join
and Universes should be in this repository?


Levente

At 3:39 PM +0100 3/13/10, Levente Uzonyi apparently wrote:
Does 'trunk' have a maintainer?
Seems to me that modern software development methodologies advocate that source does not have the author in the source code.
It is felt source code should not have an explicit owner, having an owner is thought to be detrimental to the group development process. People are afraid to do fixes then.
The community becomes the owner and anyone then feels empowered to do maintenance.

Then Matthew is a maintainer since as I recall he gathered together the changes made by others to Installer in trunk and not posted properly to the Installer repo.
So is the fellow from the Pharo list who made some bug fixes to Installer which you probably don't have in trunk.
And having to root around to find fixes to Installer caused extra work for Matthew, would have been far easier for the person making the changes to post back to the Installer repo when the changes were made.

>>>The changes are not lost, they can be merged them back to the squeaksource repository. Feel free to do it if you think they are useful.

Here's the way I would look at it if I were wanting to use Installer (which I do, I think Installer is great).

Do I want to use Installer? Yes/no.
If Yes,
Is Installer an externally managed package in its own repo? Yes/no.

If yes, load Installer from the repo.
Do I need to fix some things in Installer? Yes/no
If yes, do the fixes, test them adequately, when happy post, to the Installer repo.

I would not expect some magical someone else maintainer to search around everywhere every day, eg trunk, or Pharo, etc. for any good changes to Installer, and then figure out how to grab the changes, and do the post to the externally managed Installer package repo. That makes no sense.

>>Those that are working on the package would obviously then want to commit to the repo to keep the repo up to date.
>>
>>>Btw the repository is in a bad shape:
>>>"The currently blessed version of package 'Installer-Core' is Installer-Core-kph.92.mcz"
>>>And the repo is full of unrelated packages.
>>
>>No doubt the packages are related in some way.
>
>You mean that CollectionsTests, DrGeoII, KernelTests, Split-Join and Universes should be in this repository?

I don't know the reasoning. Maybe they were put there by some simple finger trouble mistake or glitch in ancient versions of MC which people insist on continuing to use.
Actually, if I go to the Installer project on squeaksource when logged in, and click 'Versions' I don't seem to see the ones you are talking about except Universes which has a comment saying "- Added Installers for mcd, mcm file types" so it appears related.

Ken G. Brown