Proposal for a Squeak migration meeting

Andreas Raab a écrit :
Please do not try to turn it the other way. I am explaining a bit of how
things can work in free software community development, it has nothing
to do with marketing.


> Unfortunately, all technologies go through phases and Tweak is still in
> an "early adopters" phase. What that means is that essentially those
> users who are scared by something not being mainstream are probably not
> the right users to have at this point. There are at least three areas

The problem is the lack of visibility about Tweak developer interested
or not to get it mainstream in Squeak.org. One way to to get it visible
is to hook it to Squeak.org, which is not the case right now.

> (graphics, object model and messaging model) that require some drastic
> simplifications and cleanup before it could be considered easy enough
> for mainstream use. Even though various parts have settled down by now

Sure, this is why communication is needed between Tweak and squeak.org
developper.

> (mostly by actually being used in various projects - Sophie, Croquet,
> and TinLizzie have been great forcing functions in the various areas)
> there is plenty of work left, some of which I'd say is critical before
> considering Tweak ready for mainstream use.




>
>>> Then later step by step Morph could be removed, if not relicensable.
>>> Just a smooth process for the benefice of everyone.
>
>
> If you've experienced similar processes before, they are *never* smooth.

The sooner the smoother, the later the harder as the delta will be
bigger between squeak.org and Tweak.

> Every last one of the larger technologies that got integrated into
> Squeak caused major hickups, major frustrations, and for every last one
> there have been serious attempts to avoid/retract them late in the game.
> Sometimes these technologies had years of real use behind them. I
> wouldn't expect it to be any different this time, and quite bluntly, I'm
> not sure I have the energy to deal with the frustrations.

Ok, it is absolutely understandable.

Squeak.org3.9 is what we have now, so thanks for your clear answer.
At least we now know you declined the offer to help to get Tweak in
Squeak.org. Thanks again for this clear answer.

I think we can now close this thread then move to other options.

Oh by the way installed Eclipse is 368Mb on my Linux box...

> "full" version (which really just means that it'll be loadable via
> SqueakMap) that's something we can talk about. Which is not quite a yes,
> but thus far I haven't even looked at what it means to get Tweak into
> 3.9 and I am willing to re-evaluate this option.

No Andreas, we cannot play that YES-NO game. We don't have time to waste
resource on that sort of no answer position.

Best regards,

Hilaire

On 7/7/06, Hilaire Fernandes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Please do not try to turn it the other way. I am explaining a bit of how
> things can work in free software community development, it has nothing
> to do with marketing.
>
Err... that no money is transferred does not mean that marketing is
out of the door... Marketing is *extremely* important in free
software.

> The problem is the lack of visibility about Tweak developer interested
> or not to get it mainstream in Squeak.org. One way to to get it visible
> is to hook it to Squeak.org, which is not the case right now.
>
Whos problem is that? Certainly not Andreas' problem, but it seems
you're trying to make it his problem...

Cees De Groot a écrit :
The problem is being able to work together to move Tweak in Squeak.org.
It could be the problem of both Squeak.org and Tweak developers.

But I think it is irrelevant now.

Hilaire

Hi Hilaire.

Its taken us quite a while, but one of the things I like to think we've
learned as a community is that the right way to handle big changes is to
start early, but have multiple stages. Andreas mentioned the idea of
making Tweak into a package loadable into squeak-dev. This implies a
whole lot of work, in fact in the past this stage has usually been
something like half the work required for the integration of projects,
so I wouldn't trivialize the proposal. It is good for the community
because it allows people to try it out more easily. I think this is a
better proposal than committing lots of people that have never seen
Tweak into a "Squeak 3.10 is Tweak" plan.

Part of the process of making Tweak loadable would include identifying
its prerequisites explicitly, and giving them, also, proper review and
usage, a stage that would probably be at best rushed in an "all at once"
plan.

Daniel

Hilaire Fernandes wrote:

Hello Daniel,

Daniel Vainsencher a écrit :
Sorry we can't buy it:

-Getting Tweak in Squeak.org3.9 or
-Getting Tweak in SqueakMap so it is loadable in Squeak.org3.9

is as far as I can see 99.99% of the same process.

Andrea reply NO to the 1st one, then *maybe* YES to the second one...
self contradicting.

Really, we can't move on it, if the fuzzy mode is still switch on ;)

There are other alternatives, let's discuss about that ones. I will do
some random proposals based on the recented developer contributions there.

Hilaire



--
ADD R0,R1,R2,LSL #2

Andreas Raab wrote:
....
 >
> "This plan" being to add Tweak to 3.9? Depends. For the "basic" image
> the answer is No. That's simply because I will not knowingly add to that
> 20MB whopper that is euphemistically called a "basic" image today. For a
> "full" version (which really just means that it'll be loadable via
> SqueakMap) that's something we can talk about. Which is not quite a yes,
> but thus far I haven't even looked at what it means to get Tweak into
> 3.9 and I am willing to re-evaluate this option.
>

Hi Andreas,

I think there are people who are interested in a system with Tweak that
is useable as an universal basis for:

- a personal desktop system.
- deploying a desktop application. That implies that special hardware
should not be needed, that the resulting image is reasonably small and
perhaps some flexibility in the UI look and feel.
- server applications that are developed and run in an UI-image but can
be shrunk down to a headless version if appropriate.
- something else not covered directly by the above points but imaginable
like e.g. a "browser-bootstrapped" application

Right now I guess there is some confusion or fear that you may target
only the personal desktop system like you do e.g. with Croquet. Of
course there is a road map at impara.de that looks promising, but I
think a little more affirmation about the universality of the announced
stand-alone Tweak and perhaps some updated temporal guidance would be
helpful to get people really interested -as in- getting them starting a
Tweak project.

Regards,
Martin

Am 07.07.2006 um 12:01 schrieb Hilaire Fernandes:

Actually, no. The first is a political decision (of huge impact), the  
second a technical issue (and not a small one either).

IMHO, your insistence on getting Tweak into 3.9 is a red herring -  
Tweak is bootstrappable in a regular 3.8 image. If you actually  
wanted to get a feel for what is involved in getting Tweak up and  
running you could try that.

- Bert -

Bert Freudenberg a écrit :
Ok, so according to you there are no polical desire to get Tweak in
Squeak.org. This is indeed really what a lot of us were felling.
At least it is not very clear.


> IMHO, your insistence on getting Tweak into 3.9 is a red herring -
> Tweak is bootstrappable in a regular 3.8 image. If you actually  wanted
> to get a feel for what is involved in getting Tweak up and  running you
> could try that.

Sure, but there are a big difference between getting *once* Tweak
running in Squeak.org and getting Tweak running *always* in Squeak.org
(ie integrated in, being part of, belonging to, *evoloving in*).

It is about long range vision, not short sight.

I will stop replying to this thread as I think we already have all the
element to evaluate the sitatuation regarding Tweak in Squeak.org.

Best regards,

Hilaire

Am 07.07.2006 um 14:58 schrieb Hilaire Fernandes:

Hilaire, it would be nice if you read what I write. I never said or  
implied that.

> This is indeed really what a lot of us were felling.

I hope not.

> I will stop replying to this thread as I think we already have all the
> element to evaluate the sitatuation regarding Tweak in Squeak.org.

Oh sure, you're free to do that. But it would be only fair if you do  
not base your "evaluation" on misrepresenting what others write.

Like, if you actually read what Andreas wrote, he offered to evaluate  
how much work it would be to port Tweak to 3.9. Guess who is going to  
have to do the hard work? Besides, I would very much prefer a  
discussion without threats and accusations.

- Bert -

Hilaire

here is what I suggest the community (or the interested people could  
do).

        - play with Tweak and report problems
        (now of course you can decide that you do not have the time and that  
the visibility
        is not there to do it)
        - try to load Tweak on 3.9 and report problems
        - take the latest 3.9 and report sucess of unloading/reloading package
        - help to migrate some of the tools to ToolBuilder (BTW roel shows  
me an excellent browser
        he is building)

Andreas I want to spend some time shrinking the image because right  
now this is not
minimal that we have and I agree with you for the size.

Andreas

It would be nice to have a kind of road map of:
        - the identified problems
        - next steps,
        - ... any information that be worth nothing in fact

I still want to write my second book and Tweak is still an option for  
me, but not having
a roadmap is also a problem (for the moemtn I have no time to work on  
it so I did not say/ask for anything just waiting for sophie).

Stef

On 6 juil. 06, at 19:10, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Right. I agree. So what kind of communication do you expect and  
> where have we failed to provide an appropriate level of communication?

Bert Freudenberg a écrit :

> Like, if you actually read what Andreas wrote, he offered to evaluate
> how much work it would be to port Tweak to 3.9. Guess who is going to
> have to do the hard work? Besides, I would very much prefer a
> discussion without threats and accusations.

Ok, right, it was not my intention. I am just trying hard to extract the
facts.

Hilaire

On 7-Jul-06, at 6:48 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

[snip]
>
> Hilaire, it would be nice if you read what I write. I never said or  
> implied that.

It certainly would; putting words into other people's mouths is  
neither polite nor hygenic.
[snip]
> Like, if you actually read what Andreas wrote, he offered to  
> evaluate how much work it would be to port Tweak to 3.9. Guess who  
> is going to have to do the hard work? Besides, I would very much  
> prefer a discussion without threats and accusations.

Exactly. Demanding that other people do large amounts of work is  
rarely a good way of proceeding.


tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
>> I wish it were that simple (nice marketing job btw; if this were the
>> first time I've seen this happening I'd probably buy the whole story
>> line, hook, and sinker ;-)
>
> Please do not try to turn it the other way. I am explaining a bit of how
> things can work in free software community development, it has nothing
> to do with marketing.

Marketing tries to identify mutually beneficial value propositions aka
"win-win situations". And marketing also typically looks at "the
brighter side of the truth" as a friend of mind phrases it. I think both
is true for what you said which hopefully explains my remark.

>> "This plan" being to add Tweak to 3.9? Depends. For the "basic" image
>> the answer is No. That's simply because I will not knowingly add to
>> that 20MB whopper that is euphemistically called a "basic" image
>> today. For a
>
> Squeak.org3.9 is what we have now, so thanks for your clear answer.
> At least we now know you declined the offer to help to get Tweak in
> Squeak.org. Thanks again for this clear answer.

Quite frankly, I think you are in no position to make any such "offer".
We are discussing potential options here, no more no less. In this
discussion I have offered what felt like a meaningful and reasonable
step towards your goal (contrary to you who has explicitly declined any
help as long as Tweak isn't mainstream). If that is not enough for you,
tough luck, because I have other commitments that require my attention
and I won't drop those just to make you happy.

> Oh by the way installed Eclipse is 368Mb on my Linux box...

Ten billion flies can't be all wrong either, can they?

>> "full" version (which really just means that it'll be loadable via
>> SqueakMap) that's something we can talk about. Which is not quite a
>> yes, but thus far I haven't even looked at what it means to get Tweak
>> into 3.9 and I am willing to re-evaluate this option.
>
> No Andreas, we cannot play that YES-NO game. We don't have time to waste
> resource on that sort of no answer position.

It is not a "no answer" position. It is a low-risk, low-commitment step
that will be needed anyway. Since I don't know the result of that step I
cannot possibly make any promises in good faith at this point and I
would be liar if I would claim differently.

Really, if all you are looking for is simplistic answers, you should ask
a politician, not an engineer. Politicians are really good at the simple
answers that you are seemingly looking for. If you ask an engineer like
myself you will get an answer that reflects the complexity of the actual
process involved.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Some questions, based on challenging some apparently pretty deep-seated
commitment biases observed on this list...

Why can what was previously known as Squeak not fork into:
- something that still carries the Squeak name,
- something that carries a new name such as Tweak, or Spoon?

Squeak has de-facto forked at least three ways; should we do anything
about it?  If so, what?

Why should the people described above (who want a universal system)
choose to use or evaluate Tweak now, rather than evaluating it later
when they have some evidence that it does / does not do what they want?
In other words: given the de-facto fork, why should people not evaluate
each prong of the fork on its own merits?

The maintainer(s) of a fork presumably maintain it for a reason,
possibly developmental freedom.  Who has authority over a fork's
maintainer(s) to tell them to merge with another prong of the fork?

Is any fork "more important" than any other?  For example, for those who
want a merged image, why not synchronise Squeak into a pre-existing
Tweak image, rather than Tweak into a pre-existing Squeak image?

I'll be fascinated to see whether these questions generate heat, light
or nothing :-).

                - Peter

Peter Crowther wrote:
>
> Some questions, based on challenging some apparently pretty deep-seated
> commitment biases observed on this list...
>
> Why can what was previously known as Squeak not fork into:
> - something that still carries the Squeak name,
> - something that carries a new name such as Tweak, or Spoon?
>
> Squeak has de-facto forked at least three ways;
can you tell me what those forks are?

--
brad
sonaural

On 7/8/06, Brad Fuller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Squeak has de-facto forked at least three ways;
> can you tell me what those forks are?
>

1. Squeak.org
2. SqueakLand.org
3. OpenCroquet.org

The three forks haven't diverged a lot but they can be viewed as
forks. Luckily, the VM gurus seem to be platform neutral ;-), so the
underlying VM's are kept as close as possible. And batches of patches
are sent up and down to keep the forks on the Smalltalk level close to
each other. But they are still forks.

And y'know what? That's good :-)

> From: Cees De Groot
> On 7/8/06, Brad Fuller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Squeak has de-facto forked at least three ways;
> > can you tell me what those forks are?
> >
>
> 1. Squeak.org
> 2. SqueakLand.org
> 3. OpenCroquet.org

4. Spoon + Naiad - though Craig hopes to re-merge, hence the name
'Spoon' (a fork that comes back together)

5. SqueakLight (http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3935)

(I did say 'at least' :-) )

                - Peter

Peter Crowther puso en su mail :

> 5. SqueakLight (http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3935)

Very nice to remember me, Peter.

And now I have a non- official way to manage it, trough a 24/24 free
commercial server for having "upgrades".

And manage to load MorphicWrappers and MathMorphs ( thanks Milan), or MC2
and continue experimenting to keep as compatible with last 3.9.


Sorry if I don't have enough time to write  more in English about this and a
reliable server/ISP provider/ power supply (all could fail in Argentina) for
store the image.

For now, the last is on http://ar.groups.yahoo.com/group/squeakRos/ in
"Archivos" (Files) section.

Edgar



               
_________________________________________________________
Horóscopos, Salud y belleza, Chistes, Consejos de amor:
el contenido más divertido para tu celular está en Yahoo! Móvil.
Obtenelo en http://movil.yahoo.com.ar

tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> writes:
> On 7-Jul-06, at 6:48 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > Hilaire, it would be nice if you read what I write. I never said or
> > implied that.
>
> It certainly would; putting words into other people's mouths is
> neither polite nor hygenic.

Hilaire is only asking what the status and expectations about a usable
Tweak are.  It took a lot of asking, and apparently the answer is that
you have to go back and convert a 3.8 image to a Tweak one.  This is
different from Morphic, where Morphic was initially available in
Squeak right beside MVC.


-Lex