Mantis: 0000474 AccurateDateAndTime harvested?

> Il giorno gio, 12/10/2006 alle 21.06 +0200, stephane ducasse ha scritto:
>  
>> Hi
>>
>> I will release RC2.
>> But we should not add more to it because this will never stop.
>>    
>
> yes, Yes, YES. Unless it's a serious showstopper, it should be punted to
> either 3.9.1 or 3.10.
>
> Giovanni
>
>  

>
> On 12-Oct-06, at 12:06 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I will release RC2.
>> But we should not add more to it because this will never stop.
>
> I claim we must fix the incorrect compiledmethod sharing currently  
> affecting traits. As Andreas said "should always return the class  
> it *installed* in, never the trait it is *defined* in." and the  
> result ofsourceClass should be the same as methodClass - and then  
> source class should be removed. It seems like it ought to be simple  
> but I'm awaiting a reply from Adrian about it.
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Futuristic: It will only run on a next generation supercomputer.
>
>
>

> Giovanni Corriga wrote:
>> Il giorno gio, 12/10/2006 alle 21.06 +0200, stephane ducasse ha  
>> scritto:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I will release RC2.
>>> But we should not add more to it because this will never stop.
>>>
>>
>> yes, Yes, YES. Unless it's a serious showstopper, it should be  
>> punted to
>> either 3.9.1 or 3.10.
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
> I agree,  but I think some improvements can be made...
>
> cc from note in mantis.
>
> I made a variant which effectively uses the millisecond clock for  
> the time, and the second clock for the date. I do this in  
> anticipation of the day when the vm primitives give us useful  
> milliseconds (or nanoseconds) since midnight.  [ Is this likely to  
> happen? ]
>
> I also discovered that avoiding the use of Duration in the  
> instantiation of DateAndTime improves performance by a factor of x3  
> on Andreas' observation. Making an accessor to set the instance  
> vars directly without normalizing (I don't understand the purpose  
> of normalising) boosts that to a factor of x4.
>
> Then removing the semaphore and use of the class var LastTicks  
> improves speed up to a pretty wizzy 90x the original.
>
> Perhaps for those of us who dont care about this
>  (DateAndTime now) <= (DateAndTime now) is always true*
>
> would prefer the quicker version which I have christened.
>
> DateAndTime-i-#rightNow
>

>
> On 12.10.2006, at 12:21, Keith Hodges wrote:
>
>> Has this been included in a base squeak image yet?
>>
>
> of course not.
>
> I added this to mantis on 10-28-04 15:38
>
> The very first comment on this bug is by you from 10-12-06 14:50
>
> A fix that is so important that nobody looks at it for 2 years is for
> sure need
> to be addt between Release Canditate 1 and 2. Yes. Obviously.
>
>
>      Marcus
>
>
>
>

> Marcus Denker wrote:
>>
>> On 12.10.2006, at 12:21, Keith Hodges wrote:
>>
>>> Has this been included in a base squeak image yet?
>>>
>>
>> of course not.
>>
>> I added this to mantis on 10-28-04 15:38
>>
>> The very first comment on this bug is by you from 10-12-06 14:50
>>
>> A fix that is so important that nobody looks at it for 2 years is  
>> for sure need
>> to be addt between Release Canditate 1 and 2. Yes. Obviously.
>>
>>
>>      Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Was that sarcasm?
>

> I asked the question, simply and only because I am still using 3.8  
> and have never even looked at 3.9 to know what is or isn't in there.
>
> Other people have looked at it since, just not in that particular  
> report.
> The whole point of using testing in the first place is to reduce  
> the 'cost' of releasing, to release frequently and often etc. If  
> the test suite is comprehensive enough to cover the bases, and the  
> test suite passes, then including it is a 'no brainer'. I don't  
> think it matters what release, or when. In this case where you are  
> fortunate enough to have a test suite, then why not go for it.
>
> So, although I hadn't suggested putting this in RC2, and I don't  
> think that my fixes/ideas will have been sufficiently tested for a  
> couple of days, now you come to mention it, I think that that it  
> would be a great idea to include it once the testing has been done.
>

>
>>
>> Why don't we release first (fixing those bugs that are real show  
>> stoppers), and then start again to add stuff with 3.10?
>>
>>     Marcus
>>
>>
> I have no problem with that at all, particularly since I can feel  
> stephane's pain
>
> Keith
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://
> uk.messenger.yahoo.com