Fwd: Workspace API

> From: Keith Hodges <[hidden email]>
> Date: February 12, 2009 2:38:41 PM CEST
> To: Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]>,  stephane ducasse <[hidden email]
> >
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Workspace API
>
> Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I am close enough to Stef to affirm you that he respects your work  
>> and
>> he is really willing to have a look at your code. As I do. I said  
>> that
>> I would look at your SUnit extension a long while ago. However Stef
>> and I are extremely busy. We are leading a group of 8 people, which
>> suck up all our time. Really.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alexandre
> Why do you need to look at my code? I am not speaking up because you  
> are
> not gathering up my meagre useless coding crumbs.
>
> The argument is not about code its about perspective and philosophy.
>
> MC1.5 is a loadable tool it either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't
> then the way forward is to consider contributing to the MC1.5 effort  
> to
> make it work. That is the philosophy choice, inclusive or exclusive.
>
> Will you make the philosophy choice to treat MC as a community project
> or your project, which is it to be? That choice takes no time at all  
> to
> make. You make the choice and then you can put your time and effort  
> into
> working with the consequences.
>
> I am concerned because your philosophy leads you to continue to fork
> stuff that doesn't need to be forked and should not be forked for the
> good of the community.
>
> Another trivial example: Workspace is another tool, it could be
> loadable, it need not be part of the kernel.
> Variants of Workspace could be available. Whatever is done it could be
> loadable and work in all images. There is no reason at all why my old
> production image that is still in 3.8 cant load a newer implementation
> of Workspace (since ScriptManager loads successfully)
>
> SUnit is a loadable framework it is something that should be managed  
> as
> a resource for everyone. Why does the pharo team insist on controlling
> it and forking. I am not asking you to "look at my code" in SUnit. In
> fact I doubt that the filters are actually working at the moment. Some
> of my code in SUnit was really rubbish until recent improvements.
>
> I am asking you to adopt a philosophy of seeing
> MC/SUnit/Workspace/Compiler/Collections etc as a community resource,
> with a repository squeaksource/Testing that the community maintains.  
> Not
> something that pharo does its own thing on.
>
> If you dont, then I cant write a package that loads into Squeak and
> Pharo (because MC wont necessarily be compatible) or Tests run in  
> squeak
> and Pharo (because SUnit will be incompatible).  Why don't you see  
> this
> level of compatibility as important?
>
> So again I am not complaining about the fact that you haven't looked  
> at
> this or that bit of code. Your response of "we havent had time to look
> at that " winds me up, because I hear it as "we havent had time to  
> audit
> your potentially inferior code that might be below us to use." and  
> that
> very attitude misses the point completely.
>
> All of Stef objections, demonstrate that this is how he sees it.
>
> I am complaining that you see the issue as a bunch of "potentially
> inferior" code contributions to your cause, rather than "we have
> something to contribute to the community of SUnit and MC users,  
> because
> MC and SUnit are frameworks that everyone uses and depends on."
>
> regards
>
> Keith
>

>> So again I am not complaining about the fact that you haven't looked
>> at
>> this or that bit of code. Your response of "we havent had time to look
>> at that " winds me up, because I hear it as "we havent had time to
>> audit
>> your potentially inferior code that might be below us to use." and
>> that
>> very attitude misses the point completely.
>>
>> All of Stef objections, demonstrate that this is how he sees it.
>>
>> I am complaining that you see the issue as a bunch of "potentially
>> inferior" code contributions to your cause, rather than "we have
>> something to contribute to the community of SUnit and MC users,
>> because
>> MC and SUnit are frameworks that everyone uses and depends on."

> Begin forwarded message:
> > From: Keith Hodges <[hidden email]>
> > Date: February 12, 2009 2:38:41 PM CEST
> > To: Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]>,  stephane ducasse
> > <[hidden email]
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Workspace API
> >
> > Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> >> Hi Keith,
> >>
> >> I am close enough to Stef to affirm you that he respects your work
> >> and
> >> he is really willing to have a look at your code. As I do. I said
> >> that
> >> I would look at your SUnit extension a long while ago. However Stef
> >> and I are extremely busy. We are leading a group of 8 people, which
> >> suck up all our time. Really.
> >>

> >> Regards,
> >> Alexandre
> >
> > Why do you need to look at my code? I am not speaking up because you
> > are
> > not gathering up my meagre useless coding crumbs.
> >
> > The argument is not about code its about perspective and philosophy.
> >
> > MC1.5 is a loadable tool it either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't
> > then the way forward is to consider contributing to the MC1.5 effort
> > to
> > make it work. That is the philosophy choice, inclusive or exclusive.
> >
> > Will you make the philosophy choice to treat MC as a community project
> > or your project, which is it to be? That choice takes no time at all
> > to
> > make. You make the choice and then you can put your time and effort
> > into
> > working with the consequences.
> >
> > I am concerned because your philosophy leads you to continue to fork
> > stuff that doesn't need to be forked and should not be forked for the
> > good of the community.
> >
> > Another trivial example: Workspace is another tool, it could be
> > loadable, it need not be part of the kernel.
> > Variants of Workspace could be available. Whatever is done it could be
> > loadable and work in all images. There is no reason at all why my old
> > production image that is still in 3.8 cant load a newer implementation
> > of Workspace (since ScriptManager loads successfully)
> >
> > SUnit is a loadable framework it is something that should be managed
> > as
> > a resource for everyone. Why does the pharo team insist on controlling
> > it and forking. I am not asking you to "look at my code" in SUnit. In
> > fact I doubt that the filters are actually working at the moment. Some
> > of my code in SUnit was really rubbish until recent improvements.
> >
> > I am asking you to adopt a philosophy of seeing
> > MC/SUnit/Workspace/Compiler/Collections etc as a community resource,
> > with a repository squeaksource/Testing that the community maintains.
> > Not
> > something that pharo does its own thing on.
> >
> > If you dont, then I cant write a package that loads into Squeak and
> > Pharo (because MC wont necessarily be compatible) or Tests run in
> > squeak
> > and Pharo (because SUnit will be incompatible).  Why don't you see
> > this
> > level of compatibility as important?
> >
> > So again I am not complaining about the fact that you haven't looked
> > at
> > this or that bit of code. Your response of "we havent had time to look
> > at that " winds me up, because I hear it as "we havent had time to
> > audit
> > your potentially inferior code that might be below us to use." and
> > that
> > very attitude misses the point completely.
> >
> > All of Stef objections, demonstrate that this is how he sees it.
> >
> > I am complaining that you see the issue as a bunch of "potentially
> > inferior" code contributions to your cause, rather than "we have
> > something to contribute to the community of SUnit and MC users,
> > because
> > MC and SUnit are frameworks that everyone uses and depends on."
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>>>> I am close enough to Stef to affirm you that he respects your work
>>>> and
>>>> he is really willing to have a look at your code. As I do. I said
>>>> that
>>>> I would look at your SUnit extension a long while ago. However Stef
>>>> and I are extremely busy. We are leading a group of 8 people, which
>>>> suck up all our time. Really.
>>>>
>
> One of the guy that suck up all your time thanks you ....

>> When I took up the role of maintaining MC1.5, I did so with the express
>> purpose of integrating all of the MC forks for the benefit of the whole
>> community.  If I had known that this idea was conceptually a waste of
>> time then I wouldn't have bothered. I did it because I wanted overrides
>> to actually work, and because I thought people would be enthusiastic for
>> it to actually work. How on earth do you do anything practical with MC1?
>> It drove me nuts.
>>    
>
> I have a hard time to trust a system that references 6 undefined
> variables and that sends twice as many undefined messages (see
> attached screenshot).
>
>