Fwd: [V3dot9] Another try for pre-gamma: #7051

Begin forwarded message:

Hi Stef -

I notice that #7051 still includes the FFI. What exactly do I need to do
so that the FFI gets removed from the "basic" image?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

Do that exactly. :)
Marcus is moving at the end of the week and we are all flooded by  
other boring stuff.
But we will add it to the todo. Clearly we should have a todo that is  
more robust :)
Thanks for pinging us.

Stef

On 3 août 06, at 10:29, Andreas Raab wrote:

On 03.08.2006, at 10:29, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Hi Stef -
>
> I notice that #7051 still includes the FFI. What exactly do I need  
> to do so that the FFI gets removed from the "basic" image?
>

I removed it last week in the first try that resulted in the  
corrupted image... I forgot to do it again. We will do at least
one more iteration till gamma, so we can remove it in that batch.

NBut honestly don't regard this is a "basic" image... it has lots and  
lots of stuff in it that is not needed, FFI is just one of these.
We will not do a "full" image this time (people can just install the  
packages they want, and a 'full' image would have needed
to be done and tested months ago).

So just consider it to be the new "full" image...

      Marcus

Hi Marcus,

>
> Please test....
>
>      http://ftp.squeak.org/3.9beta/Squeak3.9b-7051.zip
>
>

    I was trying to open SqueakMap Package Loader,
    and got this MNU :

UndefinedObject(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #select:
 Receiver: nil
 Arguments and temporary variables:
  aMessage:  select: [] in SMSqueakMap>>categories {[:o | o isCategory]}
 Receiver's instance variables:
nil

    Please find attached SqueakDebug.zip

    Cheers,

    SmallSqueak.

Hi ppl!
I've updated to gamma and i still get the same error...

any idea?

Thanks in advance
Sergio

Wouldn't it be better to avoid reusing version numbers 7049 to 7052?
Even if the broken images have been removed from all download sites it
is possible that they might show up later and we won't know that this
was the case. Of course, I don't know what problems skipping from 7048
directly to 7053 might cause for the updates systems.

-- Jecel

sorry but which one?

Stef

On 3 août 06, at 20:55, Sergio Gianatiempo wrote:

> Hi ppl!
> I've updated to gamma and i still get the same error...
>
> any idea?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Sergio
>

Marcus Denker wrote:
> I removed it last week in the first try that resulted in the corrupted
> image... I forgot to do it again. We will do at least
> one more iteration till gamma, so we can remove it in that batch.

Thanks.

> NBut honestly don't regard this is a "basic" image... it has lots and
> lots of stuff in it that is not needed, FFI is just one of these.
> We will not do a "full" image this time (people can just install the
> packages they want, and a 'full' image would have needed
> to be done and tested months ago).
>
> So just consider it to be the new "full" image...

So it's back to kitchen-sink. How disappointing. How very, very
disappointing.

   - Andreas

>> NBut honestly don't regard this is a "basic" image... it has lots  
>> and lots of stuff in it that is not needed, FFI is just one of these.
>> We will not do a "full" image this time (people can just install  
>> the packages they want, and a 'full' image would have needed
>> to be done and tested months ago).
>> So just consider it to be the new "full" image...
>
> So it's back to kitchen-sink. How disappointing. How very, very  
> disappointing.


I do not understand what you are saying. Don't we make progress?

For the moment we want to create a **stable** and robust image. After  
that people can really try to remove packages. You know very well  
that this is a difficult task. So we will remove FFI. I will  
certainly have a look at other packages that can be easily removed.
Now do not hesitate to participate, we cannot harvest all the fixes  
as we did alone and shrink the image....
and more....
I think that smart people understand the value of what we have been  
doing over the last year. I would have loved to do more but so far  
this is what we could.

Stef

On Aug 4, 2006, at 9:33 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:

>>> NBut honestly don't regard this is a "basic" image... it has lots  
>>> and lots of stuff in it that is not needed, FFI is just one of  
>>> these.
>>> We will not do a "full" image this time (people can just install  
>>> the packages they want, and a 'full' image would have needed
>>> to be done and tested months ago).
>>>

I agree.

>>> So just consider it to be the new "full" image...

I don't.

>>
>> So it's back to kitchen-sink. How disappointing. How very, very  
>> disappointing.
>

So whereas I value a lot the work of Marcus and Co. doing a basic  
image, I also do not agree calling this image a "full one".
On the other hand I think Marcus was provocative to find out who is  
willing to produce a "full one" right now.

For doing so we need to agree, if it is Tweak or whatever, to be  
integrated.
For that, I think we need to know, where squeakland is heading: Will  
they use tweak for Etoys 2.0 or not?
In my opinion the goals of squeakland always defined the upper layer  
of Squeak.

Or is it Squeakland waiting for squeak-dev, and squeak-dev waiting  
for squeakland? Catch22...

My 2 cents,

Markus

> I think that smart people understand the value of what we have been  
> doing over the last year. I would have loved to do more but so far  
> this is what we could.

>
> Stef
>
>
>

Hi marcus

I will not talk for other. Now I would like to have a group of people  
working on an dev image based on
3.9 that we are producing.

If someone wants to produce a education one this is also cool but  
this will not be me.

Stef

On 03.08.2006, at 21:23, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:

> Wouldn't it be better to avoid reusing version numbers 7049 to 7052?
> Even if the broken images have been removed from all download sites it
> is possible that they might show up later and we won't know that this
> was the case. Of course, I don't know what problems skipping from 7048
> directly to 7053 might cause for the updates systems.
>

yes, it would have been better. I realised that after doing it.


     Marcus

On 04.08.2006, at 03:42, Andreas Raab wrote:
Why? For me, this is just a sign that

a) we have only a limited amount of man power available
b) we don't have abstractions and tools that are good
      enough to make a real modular world practical.

e.g. as soon as we build the image from components, we *need* a  
automatic build-and-test server.
The way the 3.8full image was put together after the release of the  
basic image was completely
wrong: this would never scale to a real modular system.

And I am quite sure that the abstractions we have (e.g. PackageInfo)  
is not good enough for a true
modular image. We already now have huge problems that make even the  
maintenance of 3.9
in the current state a huge pain.

> How disappointing. How very, very disappointing.

It's nice to know that are so much pro modularity... I really should  
read again the
discussions of way-back-when. I don't recall to understood this  
position from your
postings back when people had lots of energy (3.8) for this...


    Marcus

On 04.08.2006, at 10:16, Markus Gaelli wrote:

>>>
>>> So it's back to kitchen-sink. How disappointing. How very, very  
>>> disappointing.
>>
>
> So whereas I value a lot the work of Marcus and Co. doing a basic  
> image, I also do not agree calling this image a "full one".
>

Why not? What's missing? Scamper is a broken thing, those who need  
Yaxo or VMMaker can install it, and Balloon3D
is dead.

> On the other hand I think Marcus was provocative to find out who is  
> willing to produce a "full one" right now.
>

No, I want nobody to produce an "official" full image, as then people  
download that and it will be broken, as
we never tested the packages on 3.9

> For doing so we need to agree, if it is Tweak or whatever, to be  
> integrated.
> For that, I think we need to know, where squeakland is heading:  
> Will they use tweak for Etoys 2.0 or not?
> In my opinion the goals of squeakland always defined the upper  
> layer of Squeak.

But they are not willing to cooperate in any shape or form. Etoy 2  
seems to be dead, Tweak seems to be
dead, too, if you look at the mailinglist or the amount of fixes/
improvements done (not many) over the last
year.

> Or is it Squeakland waiting for squeak-dev, and squeak-dev waiting  
> for squeakland? Catch22...

SqueakLand does not care about squeak-dev.

     Marcus

Hi Marcus -

Marcus Denker wrote:
>>> So just consider it to be the new "full" image...
>>
>> So it's back to kitchen-sink.
>
> Why? For me, this is just a sign that
>
> a) we have only a limited amount of man power available
> b) we don't have abstractions and tools that are good
>      enough to make a real modular world practical.

Yes and no. The limited amount of man power can be seen both ways: You
use it to justify a single image, I'd use it to justify a smaller image.
In other words, the less scope you have to deal with the more man power
you can invest to make sure those portions that you deal with are
handled in the best way possible. The more responsibility is with
package maintainers the less man power you need to invest.

For the abstractions and tools: Sure, we don't have the perfect solution
for these issues. But how about dealing with the parts that are utterly
trivial to deal with? Like, for example, why not immediately remove all
the packages that have almost no further dependencies, like: FFI,
Speech, Nebraska, Sound, OB? Those (and others; there are definitely
more in the image) would be steps into the right direction. And they
really don't require many tools, and for the lacking abstractions (if
any) new ones can and will be proposed. There are many practical things
that can be done if the goal is modularity. Alas, the current goal does
not appear to be modularity, or if it is, I can't see any tangible steps
into that direction.

> e.g. as soon as we build the image from components, we *need* a
> automatic build-and-test server.

The classic "we have no tools" excuse ;-) Then how about finding a
process which doesn't require the tools. How about making use of the
community instead? We've got people out there, if we can get them
involved we might be able to get significant amounts of feedback without
the automatic server (which would be great, no question, but I don't
think that's a prerequisite).

Personally, having used Mantis extensively over the last Squeak versions
I find the process, painful as it is at times, extremely useful. It is
almost guaranteed that if you take the time to file a bug, it will be
something that really matters (to you or your project). Which implies
that people provide pretty good information, discussions etc. That in
turn (at least to me) makes it a very different medium than, say,
mailing lists. I don't read all my emails, but I *do* look at all my bug
reports carefully.

> The way the 3.8full image was put together after the release of the
> basic image was completely
> wrong: this would never scale to a real modular system.

In which way? Could you explain this? It strikes me that the process by
which the 3.8 image was put together is exactly the process that we look
at for any real usage situation of Squeak: Given a base image, load a
set of packages that do what you'd like them to do and expect them to
work together. If you really think that this process is completely wrong
then we got a problem that is much deeper than this discussion.

> And I am quite sure that the abstractions we have (e.g. PackageInfo) is
> not good enough for a true
> modular image. We already now have huge problems that make even the
> maintenance of 3.9 in the current state a huge pain.

Please give some detail. I'm curious in which way for example PI isn't
good enough or in which way 3.9 maintenance is problematic. In
particular it would be interesting to me if the problems couldn't be
solved by some more robust requirements for packages, for example, no
overrides etc.

>> How disappointing. How very, very disappointing.
>
> It's nice to know that are so much pro modularity... I really should
> read again the discussions of way-back-when. I don't recall to understood
> this position from your postings back when people had lots of energy (3.8)
> for this...

Then why do you think I've spent so much time trying to fix the 3.3a
module system or on actually getting stuff out of 3.6? Why do you think
I started ToolBuilder, UIManager and made the ToolSet abstraction?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Hi,

Yes, same here. Very strange. I did not change anything with  
SqueakMap...
can you add a report to mantis?

http://bugs.impara.de/view_all_bug_page.php

On 03.08.2006, at 20:21, SmallSqueak wrote:

Marcus Denker puso en su mail :

> Hi,
>
> Yes, same here. Very strange. I did not change anything with
> SqueakMap...
> can you add a report to mantis?
I add this what I using for a long time, send to Goran , suggest to have a
button on Flaps, etc.

Install in your image , no need of delete sm dir.
Do SMLoader newWhitoutNet, should load your last saved map.
>From here you could update.
And as bonus , could use all what download without net connection.

Edgar

Marcus Denker wrote:
>> In my opinion the goals of squeakland always defined the upper layer
>> of Squeak.
>
> But they are not willing to cooperate in any shape or form.

Well, let's just assume the opposite. What kind of cooperation do you
propose?

> Etoy 2 seems to be dead, Tweak seems to be
> dead, too, if you look at the mailinglist or the amount of
> fixes/improvements done (not many) over the last year.

Not sure where you've been looking but
http://source.impara.de/Tweak.html shows some 60 versions or so for '06
alone which makes it a new version roughly every four days (and that is
only the core Tweak repository and not counting some of the surrounding
work). I wouldn't call this dead exactly. The mailing list has quieted
down some and various projects using Tweak have their own means of
communication, which is somewhat unfortunate since it prevents some more
global discussion but dead? No, most definitely not.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

I entered Mantis #4391:

- Open Squeak3.9b-7051.image
- Make some changes to source code
- Open a dual changes browser, the new changes are in the current
  project (Unnamed1).
- From the changes browser, open a new change set, accepting the
  default name "Unnamed".

==> The changes that were in "Unnamed1" disappear from the change set.

Doing a "change sets with this method" confirms that the change has
been removed from all change sets in the image.