Moose and Pharo?
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi!
Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
No, it does not. After the release of Moose that should be any time now we'll switch.
Stephan Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > Op 29 jun. 2016 om 00:24 heeft Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven: > > Hi! > > Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… > How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
Hi,
We are still working on Pharo 5 because we need to release. Cheers, Doru > On Jun 29, 2016, at 12:24 AM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi! > > Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… > How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Beauty is where we see it." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo?
Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. Stef Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : > Hi! > > Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… > How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? > > Alexandre _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Currently Synectique uses pharo 3 or 4 and we plan to pass to pharo 5 soon :-) nicolas On 08/07/2016 12:13, stepharo wrote: > But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? > > Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is > the best way to make them fork. > > I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that > it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients > > so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be > able to use Pharo 50. > > Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make > people share what there are doing. > > Stef > > > Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : >> Hi! >> >> Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… >> How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? >> >> Alexandre > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev -- Nicolas Anquetil RMod team -- Inria Lille _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
I think that there is a misunderstanding because it's like saying that someone should fork Pharo 5 because development moved to Pharo 6.
Soon moose 6 will be released on Pharo 5, so Synectique can move to it and run the stable version. Considering the resources that we have I think that it makes sense to have Alpha version of Moose on the Alpha version of Pharo. Uko Sent from my iPhone > On 08 Jul 2016, at 12:13, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? > > Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. > > I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients > > so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. > > Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. > > Stef > > >> Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : >> Hi! >> >> Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… >> How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? >> >> Alexandre > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
Currently, moose provides two possibilities: stable for pharo release and development for pharo alpha. We have builds for both on the jenkins.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hi,
We will release Moose soon. The main open issue is the often crashing Roassal, and as there was some new input recently, I decided to wait a bit for the release. So, Moose 6.0 release will be on top of Pharo 5.0. After that, the development version of Moose will move to Pharo 6.0. Cheers, Doru > On Jul 8, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Usman Bhatti <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Currently, moose provides two possibilities: stable for pharo release and development for pharo alpha. We have builds for both on the jenkins. > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? > > Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. > > I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients > > so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. > > Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. > > Stef > > > Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : > Hi! > > Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… > How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? > > Alexandre > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Every thing has its own flow." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Uko2
No it does not. Pharo 60 is alpha. Moose does not have to use an alpha
version of Pharo. Soon we will restart to work on Moose for real and I do not want to work on alpha version of Pharo. Stef Le 8/7/16 à 13:05, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit : > I think that there is a misunderstanding because it's like saying that someone should fork Pharo 5 because development moved to Pharo 6. > > Soon moose 6 will be released on Pharo 5, so Synectique can move to it and run the stable version. > > Considering the resources that we have I think that it makes sense to have Alpha version of Moose on the Alpha version of Pharo. > > Uko > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 08 Jul 2016, at 12:13, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? >> >> Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. >> >> I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients >> >> so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. >> >> Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. >> >> Stef >> >> >>> Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : >>> Hi! >>> >>> Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… >>> How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? >>> >>> Alexandre >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
Ok doru. I see that there are no real discussion possible. Sadly Moose
became more and more an ui experimentation platform versus an analysis platform (this is long time ago that I did not see new analyses beside MooseChef). Late 2016, we will have an engineer to work on the core of Moose (meta model and more) and I will have to think what we will do because I do not think that I'm really welcomed in the Moose system anymore. Each time I sent a mail I feel like an idiot telling something wrong. It is ok and it is probably time for me to step back from Moose and build something else with less strings attached. Too bad I thought that Moose was to make sure that people can sell product around it. Stef > Hi, > > We will release Moose soon. The main open issue is the often crashing Roassal, and as there was some new input recently, I decided to wait a bit for the release. > > So, Moose 6.0 release will be on top of Pharo 5.0. After that, the development version of Moose will move to Pharo 6.0. > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Jul 8, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Usman Bhatti <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Currently, moose provides two possibilities: stable for pharo release and development for pharo alpha. We have builds for both on the jenkins. >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >> But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? >> >> Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. >> >> I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients >> >> so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. >> >> Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. >> >> Stef >> >> >> Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : >> Hi! >> >> Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… >> How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? >> >> Alexandre >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Every thing has its own flow." > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
On 18/07/16 22:47, stepharo wrote: > No it does not. Pharo 60 is alpha. Moose does not have to use an alpha > version of Pharo. That's a choice with advantages and disadvantages. Seaside moves more slowly and is used in production systems. That's why it runs on stable releases of Pharo and is sometimes not up to date with alpha's. You're saying Moose is used by Synectique in production so needs more stability? A lot of the visualisation and gui work depends on parts that are supposed to be changing in Pharo 6, so we need a way to both move ahead and keep production systems stable. In Seaside we have several versions available at the same time. That could work for Moose too, and that has consequences for dependency maintenance. It is just more work, and someone has to do that work. Stephan _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
Now that I've read it, it makes sense what you are saying, but I also think that it would be nice if everyone would explain his point of view so we can discuss and find consensus.
I'm not using Moose at the moment, but here is why I said that having development version of moose on the development version of Pharo is good: Imagine that Pharo X is released with Bloc and there is super cool Roassal 3 that works on Bloc. If Moose is following Pharo, then soon after that stable Moose Y is released with cool version of Roassal 3. On the other hand if Moose is working only on stable version of Pharo, then to get cool Roassal 3 on a stable Moose version you have to wait for longer. Please note that libraries and frameworks used in my description can be anything, it was just to make the point. Stephan's example with Seaside is good. There is also more complexity because it runs on multiple platforms, but for me it is always painful to load Seaside. I want to use Pharo 5 because it has QA, but the stable version of Seaside still uses some deprecated methods and has some classes missing. It works, but each time I load it I get warnings and it is frustrated. Cheers. Uko Sent from my iPad > On 18 Jul 2016, at 22:47, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > No it does not. Pharo 60 is alpha. Moose does not have to use an alpha version of Pharo. > > Soon we will restart to work on Moose for real and I do not want to work on alpha version of Pharo. > > Stef > > >> Le 8/7/16 à 13:05, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit : >> I think that there is a misunderstanding because it's like saying that someone should fork Pharo 5 because development moved to Pharo 6. >> >> Soon moose 6 will be released on Pharo 5, so Synectique can move to it and run the stable version. >> >> Considering the resources that we have I think that it makes sense to have Alpha version of Moose on the Alpha version of Pharo. >> >> Uko >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 08 Jul 2016, at 12:13, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? >>> >>> Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. >>> >>> I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients >>> >>> so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. >>> >>> Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>>> Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… >>>> How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? >>>> >>>> Alexandre >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
Hi Stef,
I am sorry you feel this way. I did not expedite you, only we had exactly these conversations before. Like now, the issue was that if we work on the last version of Pharo the code will be unstable and we will get problems. It turns out that we did not. Where are the signs you see this as being problematic? In fact the problem is the opposite. Right now, Moose is unstable because we do not have the infrastructure and man power to develop in Pharo 5 and 6 at the same time, and we get conflicting changes especially given that GT are central to both Pharo and Moose. We had the same issue last year. So, right now we are in consolidation, but afterwards, we have to move on. As for selling, if I understand correctly, Synectique builds on the version of Moose that is stable (5.1), which was released about 1 year ago. Now, it is one year later and we should release again. I really do not see the problem. Cheers, Doru > On Jul 18, 2016, at 3:55 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Ok doru. I see that there are no real discussion possible. Sadly Moose became more and more an ui experimentation platform > > versus an analysis platform (this is long time ago that I did not see new analyses beside MooseChef). > > Late 2016, we will have an engineer to work on the core of Moose (meta model and more) and I will have to think what we will do because > > I do not think that I'm really welcomed in the Moose system anymore. Each time I sent a mail I feel like an idiot telling something wrong. > > It is ok and it is probably time for me to step back from Moose and build something else with less strings attached. > > Too bad I thought that Moose was to make sure that people can sell product around it. > > Stef > >> Hi, >> >> We will release Moose soon. The main open issue is the often crashing Roassal, and as there was some new input recently, I decided to wait a bit for the release. >> >> So, Moose 6.0 release will be on top of Pharo 5.0. After that, the development version of Moose will move to Pharo 6.0. >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Usman Bhatti <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Currently, moose provides two possibilities: stable for pharo release and development for pharo alpha. We have builds for both on the jenkins. >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? >>> >>> Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. >>> >>> I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients >>> >>> so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. >>> >>> Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : >>> Hi! >>> >>> Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… >>> How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? >>> >>> Alexandre >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> www.feenk.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow." >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "In a world where everything is moving ever faster, one might have better chances to win by moving slower." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
You see synectique alredy forked because they work with a version of
Pharo 3 or 4. Do not expect people to really contribute in such case. Since they also built their own FAMIX there is no problem. I will see if we work with their branches. Stef Le 19/7/16 à 00:09, Stephan Eggermont a écrit : > > > On 18/07/16 22:47, stepharo wrote: >> No it does not. Pharo 60 is alpha. Moose does not have to use an >> alpha version of Pharo. > That's a choice with advantages and disadvantages. Seaside moves more > slowly > and is used in production systems. That's why it runs on stable > releases of Pharo > and is sometimes not up to date with alpha's. You're saying Moose is > used by > Synectique in production so needs more stability? > > A lot of the visualisation and gui work depends on parts that are > supposed to be changing in > Pharo 6, so we need a way to both move ahead and keep production > systems stable. > In Seaside we have several versions available at the same time. That > could work for > Moose too, and that has consequences for dependency maintenance. It is > just more work, > and someone has to do that work. > > Stephan > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
Le 19/7/16 à 01:32, Tudor Girba a écrit : > Hi Stef, > > I am sorry you feel this way. I did not expedite you, only we had exactly these conversations before. You see when I sent a not funny and cool mail this is not for fun and I monitor myself. When the counter is getting too high then it means that I should change because there is a mismatch between me and others. It can come from me or from others the result is the same: change. > Like now, the issue was that if we work on the last version of Pharo the code will be unstable and we will get problems. It turns out that we did not. Where are the signs you see this as being problematic? Do you think that we can ship a product with a VM that has hiccups? Or that does not collect enough garbage? In addition Synectique does not use any of the User Interface of Moose (not GT at all - because clients found the interface not sexy and because they also want light clients). Net result: - no roassal because it has no decent graph algo (so no advantage over Javascript code) - no GT - Pharo as a server. I'm not sure that there is something to learn from this but this is the reality. The sad part is that I'm not sure that even if we ask privately we will get the real reasons because there is not need to hurt people. > In fact the problem is the opposite. Right now, Moose is unstable because we do not have the infrastructure and man power to develop in Pharo 5 and 6 at the same time, and we get conflicting changes especially given that GT are central to both Pharo and Moose. We had the same issue last year. So, right now we are in consolidation, but afterwards, we have to move on. > > As for selling, if I understand correctly, Synectique builds on the version of Moose that is stable (5.1), which was released about 1 year ago. Now, it is one year later and we should release again. > > I really do not see the problem. I would not sell products based on an alpha version of Pharo because people in alpha should have the freedom to break things and take time to fix them. Now if other people do not care about such aspects what can I say. We will work on fame replacement and more deep things so we will see if we can get a consensus inside moose else it will be outside. We will try and if it does not work we will work on our own core. Stef > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Jul 18, 2016, at 3:55 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Ok doru. I see that there are no real discussion possible. Sadly Moose became more and more an ui experimentation platform >> >> versus an analysis platform (this is long time ago that I did not see new analyses beside MooseChef). >> >> Late 2016, we will have an engineer to work on the core of Moose (meta model and more) and I will have to think what we will do because >> >> I do not think that I'm really welcomed in the Moose system anymore. Each time I sent a mail I feel like an idiot telling something wrong. >> >> It is ok and it is probably time for me to step back from Moose and build something else with less strings attached. >> >> Too bad I thought that Moose was to make sure that people can sell product around it. >> >> Stef >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> We will release Moose soon. The main open issue is the often crashing Roassal, and as there was some new input recently, I decided to wait a bit for the release. >>> >>> So, Moose 6.0 release will be on top of Pharo 5.0. After that, the development version of Moose will move to Pharo 6.0. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Usman Bhatti <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Currently, moose provides two possibilities: stable for pharo release and development for pharo alpha. We have builds for both on the jenkins. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? >>>> >>>> Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. >>>> >>>> I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients >>>> >>>> so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. >>>> >>>> Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… >>>> How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? >>>> >>>> Alexandre >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> www.feenk.com >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "In a world where everything is moving ever faster, > one might have better chances to win by moving slower." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
Hi,
Eventually, all systems needs more stability (even Pharo). Nobody can run a business with a rabbit running away constantly. Esteban ps: I think Seaside guys have done a very good job with maintainability and releasing of products, we should take them as a model to build stable products. > On 19 Jul 2016, at 00:09, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > On 18/07/16 22:47, stepharo wrote: >> No it does not. Pharo 60 is alpha. Moose does not have to use an alpha version of Pharo. > That's a choice with advantages and disadvantages. Seaside moves more slowly > and is used in production systems. That's why it runs on stable releases of Pharo > and is sometimes not up to date with alpha's. You're saying Moose is used by > Synectique in production so needs more stability? > > A lot of the visualisation and gui work depends on parts that are supposed to be changing in > Pharo 6, so we need a way to both move ahead and keep production systems stable. > In Seaside we have several versions available at the same time. That could work for > Moose too, and that has consequences for dependency maintenance. It is just more work, > and someone has to do that work. > > Stephan > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
Hi,
I think we are talking about two different things. The GT interface is not for people that want to click, but for people that want to program. Not the same audience, and I would certainly not use it for products dedicated to people that do not want to program. We need a better infrastructure for end-user products, and what we have now is not enough. I think that is not a Moose problem, but a Pharo one, and it can only change with Bloc/Brick. Also, we are talking about the development version of Moose, not the stable one. The development version is not meant to be stable (even if it turns out to be stable enough). For the Moose 5.1/Pharo 4 version, we had a couple of patches that happen after the release, and they got integrated in the respective configurations. I think that shows that we can do that if we really need to. About a Famix fork: could it be that you are referring to extensions to Famix that are specific to the languages that you are parsing, and not for the common parts? If not, I would love to hear where the issues are and how we can correct them, because I did not see public issues that were not integrated in quite some time. In any case, I am happy that you are interested in investing in the modeling parts (Fame and Famix). For example, it would be great to have traits deeply used. I would be happy to work with people in any direction. Just make it public and let’s solve real problems. Cheers, Doru > On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:30 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Le 19/7/16 à 01:32, Tudor Girba a écrit : >> Hi Stef, >> >> I am sorry you feel this way. I did not expedite you, only we had exactly these conversations before. > You see when I sent a not funny and cool mail this is not for fun and I monitor myself. When the counter is getting > too high then it means that I should change because there is a mismatch between me and others. > It can come from me or from others the result is the same: change. >> Like now, the issue was that if we work on the last version of Pharo the code will be unstable and we will get problems. It turns out that we did not. Where are the signs you see this as being problematic? > Do you think that we can ship a product with a VM that has hiccups? > Or that does not collect enough garbage? > > In addition Synectique does not use any of the User Interface of Moose (not GT at all - because clients found the interface not sexy and because they also want light clients). > Net result: > - no roassal because it has no decent graph algo (so no advantage over Javascript code) > - no GT > - Pharo as a server. > > I'm not sure that there is something to learn from this but this is the reality. > The sad part is that I'm not sure that even if we ask privately we will get the real reasons because there is not need to hurt people. > >> In fact the problem is the opposite. Right now, Moose is unstable because we do not have the infrastructure and man power to develop in Pharo 5 and 6 at the same time, and we get conflicting changes especially given that GT are central to both Pharo and Moose. We had the same issue last year. So, right now we are in consolidation, but afterwards, we have to move on. >> >> As for selling, if I understand correctly, Synectique builds on the version of Moose that is stable (5.1), which was released about 1 year ago. Now, it is one year later and we should release again. >> >> I really do not see the problem. > I would not sell products based on an alpha version of Pharo because people in alpha should have the freedom to break things > and take time to fix them. Now if other people do not care about such aspects what can I say. > > We will work on fame replacement and more deep things so we will see if we can get a consensus inside moose > else it will be outside. We will try and if it does not work we will work on our own core. > > > Stef >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 3:55 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Ok doru. I see that there are no real discussion possible. Sadly Moose became more and more an ui experimentation platform >>> >>> versus an analysis platform (this is long time ago that I did not see new analyses beside MooseChef). >>> >>> Late 2016, we will have an engineer to work on the core of Moose (meta model and more) and I will have to think what we will do because >>> >>> I do not think that I'm really welcomed in the Moose system anymore. Each time I sent a mail I feel like an idiot telling something wrong. >>> >>> It is ok and it is probably time for me to step back from Moose and build something else with less strings attached. >>> >>> Too bad I thought that Moose was to make sure that people can sell product around it. >>> >>> Stef >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> We will release Moose soon. The main open issue is the often crashing Roassal, and as there was some new input recently, I decided to wait a bit for the release. >>>> >>>> So, Moose 6.0 release will be on top of Pharo 5.0. After that, the development version of Moose will move to Pharo 6.0. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Doru >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Usman Bhatti <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Currently, moose provides two possibilities: stable for pharo release and development for pharo alpha. We have builds for both on the jenkins. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? >>>>> >>>>> Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. >>>>> >>>>> I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients >>>>> >>>>> so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. >>>>> >>>>> Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. >>>>> >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>> Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… >>>>> How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? >>>>> >>>>> Alexandre >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>> -- >>>> www.tudorgirba.com >>>> www.feenk.com >>>> >>>> "Every thing has its own flow." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> www.feenk.com >> >> "In a world where everything is moving ever faster, >> one might have better chances to win by moving slower." >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Things happen when they happen, not when you talk about them happening." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
Hi,
If we look at the details of Moose we will see that we have very few modifications in the core components such as Core, Famix, Fame, Glamour, PetitParser. These are highly stable since years. For example, the proof for that is that I can perfectly load models, parsers and custom browsers that are more than 5 years old. Where there is volatility is at the level of Roassal and GT. For the GTInspector, the public API is stable since about 3 years, and for GTSpotter since 1 year. Roassal also appears to have reached a stable state since about 1 year at the level of commonly used builders. At least from a macroscopic view, things are not so bad, actually. But, perhaps there are problems in the details. We can address them if they are announced publicly. Let’s find them and fix them. Cheers, Doru > On Jul 19, 2016, at 1:32 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Eventually, all systems needs more stability (even Pharo). > Nobody can run a business with a rabbit running away constantly. > > Esteban > > ps: I think Seaside guys have done a very good job with maintainability and releasing of products, we should take them as a model to build stable products. > >> On 19 Jul 2016, at 00:09, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 18/07/16 22:47, stepharo wrote: >>> No it does not. Pharo 60 is alpha. Moose does not have to use an alpha version of Pharo. >> That's a choice with advantages and disadvantages. Seaside moves more slowly >> and is used in production systems. That's why it runs on stable releases of Pharo >> and is sometimes not up to date with alpha's. You're saying Moose is used by >> Synectique in production so needs more stability? >> >> A lot of the visualisation and gui work depends on parts that are supposed to be changing in >> Pharo 6, so we need a way to both move ahead and keep production systems stable. >> In Seaside we have several versions available at the same time. That could work for >> Moose too, and that has consequences for dependency maintenance. It is just more work, >> and someone has to do that work. >> >> Stephan >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Be rather willing to give than demanding to get." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
Le 19/7/16 à 11:38, Tudor Girba a écrit : > Hi, > > I think we are talking about two different things. > > The GT interface is not for people that want to click, but for people that want to program. Not the same audience, and I would certainly not use it for products dedicated to people that do not want to program. We need a better infrastructure for end-user products, and what we have now is not enough. I think that is not a Moose problem, but a Pharo one, and it can only change with Bloc/Brick. > > Also, we are talking about the development version of Moose, not the stable one. The development version is not meant to be stable (even if it turns out to be stable enough). For the Moose 5.1/Pharo 4 version, we had a couple of patches that happen after the release, and they got integrated in the respective configurations. I think that shows that we can do that if we really need to. > > About a Famix fork: could it be that you are referring to extensions to Famix that are specific to the languages that you are parsing, and not for the common parts? If not, I would love to hear where the issues are and how we can correct them, because I did not see public issues that were not integrated in quite some time. > > In any case, I am happy that you are interested in investing in the modeling parts (Fame and Famix). For example, it would be great to have traits deeply used. I would be happy to work with people in any direction. Just make it public and let’s solve real problems. This was discussed some years ago on this mailing-list. Check emails of nicolas and anne. We will send a call for job with a description of tasks we want. In a nutshell and from memory - easier way to describe metamodels (probably based on platypus) -- better handling relationships (union....) - probably revisit the bootstrap of FAME because it is really arcane. - use of slot for inverse FMmultivalue link - using traits at the meta meta level - see how we can integrate better with dynacase toolings Stef > > Cheers, > Doru > > > >> On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:30 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Le 19/7/16 à 01:32, Tudor Girba a écrit : >>> Hi Stef, >>> >>> I am sorry you feel this way. I did not expedite you, only we had exactly these conversations before. >> You see when I sent a not funny and cool mail this is not for fun and I monitor myself. When the counter is getting >> too high then it means that I should change because there is a mismatch between me and others. >> It can come from me or from others the result is the same: change. >>> Like now, the issue was that if we work on the last version of Pharo the code will be unstable and we will get problems. It turns out that we did not. Where are the signs you see this as being problematic? >> Do you think that we can ship a product with a VM that has hiccups? >> Or that does not collect enough garbage? >> >> In addition Synectique does not use any of the User Interface of Moose (not GT at all - because clients found the interface not sexy and because they also want light clients). >> Net result: >> - no roassal because it has no decent graph algo (so no advantage over Javascript code) >> - no GT >> - Pharo as a server. >> >> I'm not sure that there is something to learn from this but this is the reality. >> The sad part is that I'm not sure that even if we ask privately we will get the real reasons because there is not need to hurt people. >> >>> In fact the problem is the opposite. Right now, Moose is unstable because we do not have the infrastructure and man power to develop in Pharo 5 and 6 at the same time, and we get conflicting changes especially given that GT are central to both Pharo and Moose. We had the same issue last year. So, right now we are in consolidation, but afterwards, we have to move on. >>> >>> As for selling, if I understand correctly, Synectique builds on the version of Moose that is stable (5.1), which was released about 1 year ago. Now, it is one year later and we should release again. >>> >>> I really do not see the problem. >> I would not sell products based on an alpha version of Pharo because people in alpha should have the freedom to break things >> and take time to fix them. Now if other people do not care about such aspects what can I say. >> >> We will work on fame replacement and more deep things so we will see if we can get a consensus inside moose >> else it will be outside. We will try and if it does not work we will work on our own core. >> >> >> Stef >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 3:55 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ok doru. I see that there are no real discussion possible. Sadly Moose became more and more an ui experimentation platform >>>> >>>> versus an analysis platform (this is long time ago that I did not see new analyses beside MooseChef). >>>> >>>> Late 2016, we will have an engineer to work on the core of Moose (meta model and more) and I will have to think what we will do because >>>> >>>> I do not think that I'm really welcomed in the Moose system anymore. Each time I sent a mail I feel like an idiot telling something wrong. >>>> >>>> It is ok and it is probably time for me to step back from Moose and build something else with less strings attached. >>>> >>>> Too bad I thought that Moose was to make sure that people can sell product around it. >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> We will release Moose soon. The main open issue is the often crashing Roassal, and as there was some new input recently, I decided to wait a bit for the release. >>>>> >>>>> So, Moose 6.0 release will be on top of Pharo 5.0. After that, the development version of Moose will move to Pharo 6.0. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Doru >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Usman Bhatti <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently, moose provides two possibilities: stable for pharo release and development for pharo alpha. We have builds for both on the jenkins. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? >>>>>> >>>>>> Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients >>>>>> >>>>>> so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stef >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : >>>>>> Hi! >>>>>> >>>>>> Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… >>>>>> How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? >>>>>> >>>>>> Alexandre >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>> -- >>>>> www.tudorgirba.com >>>>> www.feenk.com >>>>> >>>>> "Every thing has its own flow." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> www.feenk.com >>> >>> "In a world where everything is moving ever faster, >>> one might have better chances to win by moving slower." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Things happen when they happen, > not when you talk about them happening." > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hi,
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 5:52 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Le 19/7/16 à 11:38, Tudor Girba a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> I think we are talking about two different things. >> >> The GT interface is not for people that want to click, but for people that want to program. Not the same audience, and I would certainly not use it for products dedicated to people that do not want to program. We need a better infrastructure for end-user products, and what we have now is not enough. I think that is not a Moose problem, but a Pharo one, and it can only change with Bloc/Brick. >> >> Also, we are talking about the development version of Moose, not the stable one. The development version is not meant to be stable (even if it turns out to be stable enough). For the Moose 5.1/Pharo 4 version, we had a couple of patches that happen after the release, and they got integrated in the respective configurations. I think that shows that we can do that if we really need to. >> >> About a Famix fork: could it be that you are referring to extensions to Famix that are specific to the languages that you are parsing, and not for the common parts? If not, I would love to hear where the issues are and how we can correct them, because I did not see public issues that were not integrated in quite some time. >> >> In any case, I am happy that you are interested in investing in the modeling parts (Fame and Famix). For example, it would be great to have traits deeply used. I would be happy to work with people in any direction. Just make it public and let’s solve real problems. > Ok noted. I was sure you would say that so we will see. > This was discussed some years ago on this mailing-list. Check emails of nicolas and anne. > > We will send a call for job with a description of tasks we want. Great. > In a nutshell and from memory > - easier way to describe metamodels (probably based on platypus) I think it is an interesting goal. I just want to keep as a goal the simplest mapping to the Pharo code, too. Certainly, a separate DSL would be an interesting direction, but another route here would be to have a better tool integration that allows us to map meta-annotations to the code. > -- better handling relationships (union….) Interesting. Do you have more details? > - probably revisit the bootstrap of FAME because it is really arcane. > - use of slot for inverse FMmultivalue link Yes. > - using traits at the meta meta level Yes. And in Famix. > - see how we can integrate better with dynacase toolings Interesting. Could you detail that use case? Cheers, Doru > Stef >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> >>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:30 AM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 19/7/16 à 01:32, Tudor Girba a écrit : >>>> Hi Stef, >>>> >>>> I am sorry you feel this way. I did not expedite you, only we had exactly these conversations before. >>> You see when I sent a not funny and cool mail this is not for fun and I monitor myself. When the counter is getting >>> too high then it means that I should change because there is a mismatch between me and others. >>> It can come from me or from others the result is the same: change. >>>> Like now, the issue was that if we work on the last version of Pharo the code will be unstable and we will get problems. It turns out that we did not. Where are the signs you see this as being problematic? >>> Do you think that we can ship a product with a VM that has hiccups? >>> Or that does not collect enough garbage? >>> >>> In addition Synectique does not use any of the User Interface of Moose (not GT at all - because clients found the interface not sexy and because they also want light clients). >>> Net result: >>> - no roassal because it has no decent graph algo (so no advantage over Javascript code) >>> - no GT >>> - Pharo as a server. >>> >>> I'm not sure that there is something to learn from this but this is the reality. >>> The sad part is that I'm not sure that even if we ask privately we will get the real reasons because there is not need to hurt people. >>> >>>> In fact the problem is the opposite. Right now, Moose is unstable because we do not have the infrastructure and man power to develop in Pharo 5 and 6 at the same time, and we get conflicting changes especially given that GT are central to both Pharo and Moose. We had the same issue last year. So, right now we are in consolidation, but afterwards, we have to move on. >>>> >>>> As for selling, if I understand correctly, Synectique builds on the version of Moose that is stable (5.1), which was released about 1 year ago. Now, it is one year later and we should release again. >>>> >>>> I really do not see the problem. >>> I would not sell products based on an alpha version of Pharo because people in alpha should have the freedom to break things >>> and take time to fix them. Now if other people do not care about such aspects what can I say. >>> >>> We will work on fame replacement and more deep things so we will see if we can get a consensus inside moose >>> else it will be outside. We will try and if it does not work we will work on our own core. >>> >>> >>> Stef >>>> Cheers, >>>> Doru >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 3:55 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ok doru. I see that there are no real discussion possible. Sadly Moose became more and more an ui experimentation platform >>>>> >>>>> versus an analysis platform (this is long time ago that I did not see new analyses beside MooseChef). >>>>> >>>>> Late 2016, we will have an engineer to work on the core of Moose (meta model and more) and I will have to think what we will do because >>>>> >>>>> I do not think that I'm really welcomed in the Moose system anymore. Each time I sent a mail I feel like an idiot telling something wrong. >>>>> >>>>> It is ok and it is probably time for me to step back from Moose and build something else with less strings attached. >>>>> >>>>> Too bad I thought that Moose was to make sure that people can sell product around it. >>>>> >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> We will release Moose soon. The main open issue is the often crashing Roassal, and as there was some new input recently, I decided to wait a bit for the release. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, Moose 6.0 release will be on top of Pharo 5.0. After that, the development version of Moose will move to Pharo 6.0. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Doru >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Usman Bhatti <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Currently, moose provides two possibilities: stable for pharo release and development for pharo alpha. We have builds for both on the jenkins. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> But why Moose should be using an alpha version of Pharo? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some people need stable versions of Moose, so moving to Pharo 60 is the best way to make them fork. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not know what ussman thinks about that, but I do not think that it is wise to ship Pharo60 to synectique clients >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so if this is the case I will advise them to fork everything to be able to use Pharo 50. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now people should not complain after that it is difficult to make people share what there are doing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stef >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 29/6/16 à 00:24, Alexandre Bergel a écrit : >>>>>>> Hi! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does the moose build uses Pharo 6? It does not look like… >>>>>>> How to make Moose loads in Pharo 6? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alexandre >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>> -- >>>>>> www.tudorgirba.com >>>>>> www.feenk.com >>>>>> >>>>>> "Every thing has its own flow." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>> -- >>>> www.tudorgirba.com >>>> www.feenk.com >>>> >>>> "In a world where everything is moving ever faster, >>>> one might have better chances to win by moving slower." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> www.feenk.com >> >> "Things happen when they happen, >> not when you talk about them happening." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "To utilize feedback, you first have to acquire it." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev |
«
Return to Moose
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |