Pharo 1.3 process

On Apr 3, 2011, at 7:12 PM, laurent laffont wrote:

> Hi,
>
> as I'm a little lost on Pharo 1.2 (1.2.1 full was announced but I haven't seen 1.2.0, no big party, no 1 million download contest, BBC announcement... :) I wonder how we can improve the process for 1.3.
>
> I'm thinking about:
> - not starting Pharo 1.4 too soon as I feel it will steal energy from Pharo 1.3.

we will not start 1.4 before 1.3 is at least one month in beta.

> - freezing early to have shorter release and have less stuff to fix with maximum energy (it seems energy go down quickly in the fixing period)

this is what we did. We got now 3 months of beta and result: nobody look at it

> - a failing test should be highest priority: it's easier to fix a broken feature/test as soon as it appears

yes but if nobody look at them, does it make a difference?

> - one guy should drive the release (I feel that Mariano did this for Pharo 1.1 and we know who we should talk to).

marcus did that and this is not the problem.
>
> Any idea ?

We should no have pharo-dev just pharo-core + RB + oCompletion + shout in the core.
>
> Laurent.

>>
>>
>> as I'm a little lost on Pharo 1.2 (1.2.1 full was announced but I haven't seen 1.2.0, no big party, no 1 million download contest, BBC announcement... :) I wonder how we can improve the process for 1.3.
>>
> Yes, that is why I did not want to decouple the release of Core from Full. Because is drags out the release so far that we can not announce it
>
> But we could not, as people (inkluding those maintaining packages of Full) only look at released core images...
> And so I did a Core 1.2. And people looked at it. Finally. So I did a 1.2.1, and only after releasing that, people looked at it,

This is not your fault.


> so I even started
> a 1.2.2 today.. and now I am dead.


Let 1.2.2 for in a couple of months.


>> I'm thinking about:
>> - not starting Pharo 1.4 too soon as I feel it will steal energy from Pharo 1.3.
>> - freezing early to have shorter release and have less stuff to fix with maximum energy (it seems energy go down quickly in the fixing period)
>> - a failing test should be highest priority: it's easier to fix a broken feature/test as soon as it appears
>> - one guy should drive the release (I feel that Mariano did this for Pharo 1.1 and we know who we should talk to).
>>
>
> - Get rid of the Core/Full image destinction. This does not work. And I will not do a release with having two images again... it never worked, and it will never work.

Yes we are working on that.
The missing pieces of the puzzle are coming along.

Stef

>
> - Get rid of the Core/Full image destinction. This does not work. And I will not do a release with having two images again... it never worked, and it will never work.

Yes but for that we need a good browser that we can maintain.

> Yes, 2 images seems hard to maintain  and hard to understand for newcomers.
>
> May be we can have:
> - Metacello configurations tested separately in Pharo-Clients in Hudson (like PetitParser, Seaside, ...) - drop the ones that don't have tests
> - drop actual Pharo, rename PharoCore => Pharo.
> - GUI tool in Pharo to easy load Metacello configurations (some stuff must be easy to load for newbies, especially help

This is the idea. This is why I asked people (mariano in particular) to focus on helping metacello taking off the ground
and to focus on metacello distributions. Once this is up and running. we can have Pharo and hudson loads and certifies the distributions.

Stef

btw... how's the repository policy we are going to use? to keep MetacelloRepository?
or better to use MetacelloRepositoryForPharo12, etc.?

if we are going for the 2nd option, we need to start switching :P

cheers,
Esteban


El 03/04/2011, a las 4:17p.m., Stéphane Ducasse escribió:

second one.
Yes I would like but no time.

Stef

On Apr 4, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: