Issue 3485 in pharo: VMMaker does not load on Pharo 1.2

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:47 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Comment #3 on issue 3485 by stephane.ducasse: VMMaker does not load on
>> Pharo 1.2
>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3485
>>
>> The documented format is:
>>
>> Timestampstrings can be of the form:
>>                <authorname><date><time>.
>>                <authorname><date>
>>                <date><time>
>>                <date><time><authorname>
>>                <date><authorname>
>>                <historical>
>>

>
> The documented format is:
>
> Timestampstrings can be of the form:
>                <authorname><date><time>.
>                <authorname><date>
>                <date><time>
>                <date><time><authorname>
>                <date><authorname>
>                <historical>
>
>
> Says /who/?  When I created all these timestamps to document a refactoring change there was no documented restriction on timestamps I could see.  Why impose restrictions which have little value?  Why needlessly break compatibility?  That timestamp *contains useful information*.  Why ban it?
>
> If you *want* VMMaker to load in Pharo you need to ensure that Pharo supports the timestamps *that exist* not the timestamps you want to impose on the community.

> On 28 December 2010 19:04, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:47 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Comment #3 on issue 3485 by stephane.ducasse: VMMaker does not load on
>>> Pharo 1.2
>>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3485
>>>
>>> The documented format is:
>>>
>>> Timestampstrings can be of the form:
>>>                <authorname><date><time>.
>>>                <authorname><date>
>>>                <date><time>
>>>                <date><time><authorname>
>>>                <date><authorname>
>>>                <historical>
>>>
> wow thats incredible..
>
> can you add there support for:
>
> <author-><time><-name><date>
>
> cause i prefer this format for myself? :)

>> Says /who/?  When I created all these timestamps to document a refactoring
>> change there was no documented restriction on timestamps I could see.  Why
>> impose restrictions which have little value?  Why needlessly break
>> compatibility?  That timestamp *contains useful information*.  Why ban it?
>
> Information is useful, if it can be understood by system , which can
> extract three distinct fields,
> like <author>  <comment> <date&time>
> but when information looks like a soup where different things put in
> random order and random <historical> format,
> then it is just garbage.

> Still, i agree it is useful, even in such messy form, but only to
> human reader, and unfortunately not to system,
> since it have no means to distinguish where this method comes from,
> who is author and what is datestamp of it.
>
> Would you like to query a system some day, like: 'show me all methods
> modified by Mr. Eliot Miranda in Dec 2010' ?
> If yes, then probably we should think about some formalism there.
> At least, please stop inventing new format types each other day, which
> will confuse already complex parser.
>
>> If you *want* VMMaker to load in Pharo you need to ensure that Pharo
>> supports the timestamps *that exist* not the timestamps you want to impose
>> on the community.
>
> obviously, pharo can't impose any rules to projects which developed
> outside pharo.
>
>> best
>> Eliot
>>>
>>> So may the best is to republish a method with the correct timestamp.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>

>
> On Dec 28, 2010, at 8:48 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> On 28 December 2010 19:04, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:47 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Comment #3 on issue 3485 by stephane.ducasse: VMMaker does not load on
>>>> Pharo 1.2
>>>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3485
>>>>
>>>> The documented format is:
>>>>
>>>> Timestampstrings can be of the form:
>>>>                <authorname><date><time>.
>>>>                <authorname><date>
>>>>                <date><time>
>>>>                <date><time><authorname>
>>>>                <date><authorname>
>>>>                <historical>
>>>>
>> wow thats incredible..
>>
>> can you add there support for:
>>
>> <author-><time><-name><date>
>>
>> cause i prefer this format for myself? :)
>
>
> In fact I do not know where this information is coming from.
> May be johan when he tried to recover what was stored in the strings.
>

>>> Says /who/?  When I created all these timestamps to document a refactoring
>>> change there was no documented restriction on timestamps I could see.  Why
>>> impose restrictions which have little value?  Why needlessly break
>>> compatibility?  That timestamp *contains useful information*.  Why ban it?
>>
>> Information is useful, if it can be understood by system , which can
>> extract three distinct fields,
>> like <author>  <comment> <date&time>
>> but when information looks like a soup where different things put in
>> random order and random <historical> format,
>> then it is just garbage.
>
> Yes structuring a bit would help tool builders else forget it, all our tools will be try and error.
> I like that structure: <author>  <comment> <date&time> it makes sense
>

>>>>
> Let me clarify, what i proposing.
>
> Entries like:
>
> ADPCMCodec methodsFor: 'private' stamp: 'zz (auto pragmas 12/08) 3/2/2004 07:58'
>
> should look like:
>
> ADPCMCodec methodsFor: 'private' author: 'zz' comment: 'auto pragmas
> 12/08' timestamp:'3/2/2004 07:58'
>
> and we can leave a potential for future extensions, by taking a
> message pattern which starts from
> #methodsFor: ....
>
> and store all keywords which follows it like 'author' 'comment' 'timestamp'
> in a dictionary, with key/value pairs.
>
> Also, it would be nice to simply evaluate this using smalltalk
> compiler, but doing a trick with substituting global name bindings
> like ADPCMCodec with proxies, which understand these messages.
> Then you will have a clean and extensible changeset/smalltalk source
> code reader.
> What could be simpler?

> On 29/12/2010 10:14, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> > Entries like:
> > ADPCMCodec methodsFor: 'private' stamp: 'zz (auto pragmas 12/08) 3/2/2004 07:58'
> >
> > should look like:
> >
> > ADPCMCodec methodsFor: 'private' author: 'zz' comment: 'auto pragmas
> > 12/08' timestamp:'3/2/2004 07:58'
>
> Just out of curiosity is that date the third of February or the second
> of March 2004? ;)

> El mié, 29-12-2010 a las 11:01 +0000, Douglas Brebner escribió:
>> On 29/12/2010 10:14, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> > Entries like:
>> > ADPCMCodec methodsFor: 'private' stamp: 'zz (auto pragmas 12/08) 3/2/2004 07:58'
>> >
>> > should look like:
>> >
>> > ADPCMCodec methodsFor: 'private' author: 'zz' comment: 'auto pragmas
>> > 12/08' timestamp:'3/2/2004 07:58'
>>
>> Just out of curiosity is that date the third of February or the second
>> of March 2004? ;)
>
>>
>
> Or 07:58 in Paris time or California Time.
>
> That is not a good format. Even worse is trying to use the timestamps
> strings like a bad source code management. It was from a time when there
> were no SCM solutions for Squeak and they served their purpose. But now,
> the are obsolete. I think that they should have only *last* username
> (not initials, that is lame, too many collisions, not thinking about
> future users, imagine Linux kernel contributors using initials!), time
> stamp in UTC with timezone and not even free text.
> The core image that is not persisted in monticello can rely on
> timestamps to see who last edited some method, but the method internal
> comments are the place to point the comments, not the timestamps.
> For all the other code that have monticello packages, it is forbiden  to
> even use the method timestamp to store something that seems like a
> comment.
>
> The comments are for the SCM or for the method comments, not for the
> method timestamps.
>

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > The documented format is:
> >
> > Timestampstrings can be of the form:
> >                <authorname><date><time>.
> >                <authorname><date>
> >                <date><time>
> >                <date><time><authorname>
> >                <date><authorname>
> >                <historical>
> >
> >
> > Says /who/?  When I created all these timestamps to document a refactoring change there was no documented restriction on timestamps I could see.  Why impose restrictions which have little value?  Why needlessly break compatibility?  That timestamp *contains useful information*.  Why ban it?
> >
> > If you *want* VMMaker to load in Pharo you need to ensure that Pharo supports the timestamps *that exist* not the timestamps you want to impose on the community.
>
> Eliot we do not impose anything to the community. Please do not bash us we have enough to do without that!
>
> Steph, /I'm/ not bashing.  I got bashed.  Suddenly the comments I'd put in VMMaker were to be banned by Pharo.  Look, the timestamp syntax if any, is defined by Utilities class>>changeStamp, along with the implicit restriction that the changeStamp can't contain an exclamation point, or it'll break parsing.  Utilities class>>changeStamp is essentially anything followed by date and time, because there are /no/ restrictions on what one sets the Author initials to be (some people use full name, some people use initials, some people use put other stuff in there, but it's free apart from the $!).  So to parse date and time one has to start at the end of the timestamp, go back two spaces and parse from there (ooh, difficult ;) ).  There's no need for anything else.  Why make life difficult for the community by imposing syntax when none existed before?  All you'll do is make work and frustrate people.  Is Pharo about helping or hindering?  I think it's about helping, but the above syntax restrictions don't feel like that.  KISS, right?  If you want to find the date or time in a timestamp start at the end, and leave the beginning free from interpretation.
>
> 2¢
>
>  
> Apparently the code was like that and people (may be johan) started to make sense out of it.
>
> Stef
>

> Eliot
>
> johan is not that idiot. So far when I see what they built for their company this is more the inverse.
> He spent several days trying to figure out how to manage decently the source. I will check with him what they did but they probably tried to extract  information from all the methods in the system.
>
>
> changeStamp
> "Answer a string to be pasted into source code to mark who changed it and when."
> ^ Author fullName , ' ' , Date today mmddyyyy, ' ',
> ((String streamContents: [:s | Time now print24: true on: s]) copyFrom: 1 to: 5)
>
> Now how can I identify a comment from a person and and action?
> Beginning until a space?
> date end until a space?
>
> We can do that. It looks like a hack to me.
>
> People are building tools to **help** us but if we push on them unstructured data then we push the shit on them.
> Let's take a simple example: benjamin smart, young student rewrote the recentMessage tools and the finder for fun. Now the
> state of MethodReference and its clunky use made something trivial just a big pain. I do not even talk about the change format
> which need scanner invocation to distinguish between a class def and a doit.
> So if we do not offer a good infrastructure we will be stuck for years with old tools. Some people do not like change at all
> but we value it for the better.
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2010, at 12:47 AM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The documented format is:
>>>
>>> Timestampstrings can be of the form:
>>>               <authorname><date><time>.
>>>               <authorname><date>
>>>               <date><time>
>>>               <date><time><authorname>
>>>               <date><authorname>
>>>               <historical>
>>>
>>>
>>> Says /who/?  When I created all these timestamps to document a refactoring change there was no documented restriction on timestamps I could see.  Why impose restrictions which have little value?  Why needlessly break compatibility?  That timestamp *contains useful information*.  Why ban it?
>>>
>>> If you *want* VMMaker to load in Pharo you need to ensure that Pharo supports the timestamps *that exist* not the timestamps you want to impose on the community.
>>
>> Eliot we do not impose anything to the community. Please do not bash us we have enough to do without that!
>>
>> Steph, /I'm/ not bashing.  I got bashed.  Suddenly the comments I'd put in VMMaker were to be banned by Pharo.  Look, the timestamp syntax if any, is defined by Utilities class>>changeStamp, along with the implicit restriction that the changeStamp can't contain an exclamation point, or it'll break parsing.  Utilities class>>changeStamp is essentially anything followed by date and time, because there are /no/ restrictions on what one sets the Author initials to be (some people use full name, some people use initials, some people use put other stuff in there, but it's free apart from the $!).  So to parse date and time one has to start at the end of the timestamp, go back two spaces and parse from there (ooh, difficult ;) ).  There's no need for anything else.  Why make life difficult for the community by imposing syntax when none existed before?  All you'll do is make work and frustrate people.  Is Pharo about helping or hindering?  I think it's about helping, but the above syntax restrictions don't feel like that.  KISS, right?  If you want to find the date or time in a timestamp start at the end, and leave the beginning free from interpretation.
>>
>> 2¢
>>
>>
>> Apparently the code was like that and people (may be johan) started to make sense out of it.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>
>