Re: Trip to Pharo land

> Hi!
>
> CCing Pharo list, this was regarding:
>
> http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/eblankett-dev.rdoc
>
> On 05/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
>>
>> Hello Göran,
>>
>> Is there a special reason you tried Pharo 1.0? Your improvements are of
>
> Nope, just (wrongly I agree) thought it was fairly up to date since it was
> just released. But you are right, depending on release process that does
> indeed not necessarily correlate.
>
>> course
>> in 1.1. Feature freeze for 1.0 was long ago. If you're willing to use
>> the bleeding edge
>> in squeak, why not do it in pharo too?
>
> Again, not a conscious choice. I can use bleeding edge in Pharo too, is
> there an easy place to start? Earlier I used some core + Renggli scripts to
> get a decent image.
>
>> Which peek bugfix is in Squeak? The 2010-1-13 solution is wrong.
>> See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1813.
>
> I will check it out, gotta work on the house now :)
>
>> Groetjes,
>> Stephan Eggermont
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Göran
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

> Hi!
>
> CCing Pharo list, this was regarding:
>
> http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/eblankett-dev.rdoc
>
> On 05/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
>> Hello Göran,
>>
>> Is there a special reason you tried Pharo 1.0? Your improvements are of
>
> Nope, just (wrongly I agree) thought it was fairly up to date since it was just released. But you are right, depending on release process that does indeed not necessarily correlate.
>
>> course
>> in 1.1. Feature freeze for 1.0 was long ago. If you're willing to use
>> the bleeding edge
>> in squeak, why not do it in pharo too?
>
> Again, not a conscious choice. I can use bleeding edge in Pharo too, is there an easy place to start? Earlier I used some core + Renggli scripts to get a decent image.
>
>> Which peek bugfix is in Squeak? The 2010-1-13 solution is wrong.
>> See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1813.
>
> I will check it out, gotta work on the house now :)
>
>> Groetjes,
>> Stephan Eggermont
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Göran
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> Hi!
>
> CCing Pharo list, this was regarding:
>
> http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/eblankett-dev.rdoc
>
> On 05/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
>> Hello Göran,
>>
>> Is there a special reason you tried Pharo 1.0? Your improvements are of
>
> Nope, just (wrongly I agree) thought it was fairly up to date since it
> was just released. But you are right, depending on release process
> that does indeed not necessarily correlate.

>
>> course
>> in 1.1. Feature freeze for 1.0 was long ago. If you're willing to use
>> the bleeding edge
>> in squeak, why not do it in pharo too?
>
> Again, not a conscious choice. I can use bleeding edge in Pharo too,
> is there an easy place to start? Earlier I used some core + Renggli
> scripts to get a decent image.
>
>> Which peek bugfix is in Squeak? The 2010-1-13 solution is wrong.
>> See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1813.
>
> I will check it out, gotta work on the house now :)
>
>> Groetjes,
>> Stephan Eggermont
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Göran

>> CCing Pharo list, this was regarding:
>>
>> http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/eblankett-dev.rdoc
>>
>> On 05/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
>>> Hello Göran,
>>>
>>> Is there a special reason you tried Pharo 1.0? Your improvements are of
>>
>> Nope, just (wrongly I agree) thought it was fairly up to date since it was just released. But you are right, depending on release process that does indeed not necessarily correlate.
> Pharo 1.0 was in freeze for a loooong time, mostly due to the problematic network changes that ended up getting reverted.
> Why none of the bugfixes have been bundled up as a 1.0 upgrade,

> I'm not entirely certain, but the awareness of marking bugfixes as 1.0.1 has been fairly low :/
> In either case you'd probably not find Date readFrom:pattern: in such a patch.
>
>>
>>> course
>>> in 1.1. Feature freeze for 1.0 was long ago. If you're willing to use
>>> the bleeding edge
>>> in squeak, why not do it in pharo too?
>>
>> Again, not a conscious choice. I can use bleeding edge in Pharo too, is there an easy place to start? Earlier I used some core + Renggli scripts to get a decent image.
>>
>>> Which peek bugfix is in Squeak? The 2010-1-13 solution is wrong.
>>> See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1813.
>>
>> I will check it out, gotta work on the house now :)
>>
>>> Groetjes,
>>> Stephan Eggermont
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback, Göran
>
> The peek bug fix, the perform:withArguments: fix and Date readFrom:pattern: are all in an updated Pharo 1.1.
> You can get a fairly recent core image from
> https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/27017/PharoCore-1.1-11367-Beta.zip
> or a dev image from
> https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/27025/Pharo-1.1-11367-Betadev10.05.1.zip
> (Update 11369 included the perform:withArguments: fix, you'd have to do Utilities updateFromServer manually in the dev image)

>> I'd guess the important thing is to explain on the Pharo web site
>> that bug fixes are in the 1.1 and are not (always) retrofitted to 1.0
>
> only showstoppers = severe bugs = that can put the system on his knees.
> But probably we should stay that:
>
> "In the current set of ressources only showstoppers or extremely severe bugs are retrofitted in
> old versions"
>
> Stef
>
>>
>> Stephan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> If there is a need for backporting important fixes to 1.0 I can do that during the sprint next Saturday. But I would need to know *which* fixes are the critical ones.
>
> Adrian
>
> On May 30, 2010, at 18:10 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>>> I'd guess the important thing is to explain on the Pharo web site
>>> that bug fixes are in the 1.1 and are not (always) retrofitted to 1.0
>>
>> only showstoppers = severe bugs = that can put the system on his knees.
>> But probably we should stay that:
>>
>> "In the current set of ressources only showstoppers or extremely severe bugs are retrofitted in
>> old versions"
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>>
>>> Stephan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> I think that Goran's case was an indication how sometimes hard to cope
> up with latest & finest things.
> So, Goran had issues with trunk, as well as with Pharo..
> And wasted a time by using old/obsolete, wrong things, because of lack
> of information.
>
> Take into account that all of it happen to not someone just starting,
> but with one, who being around for a while!
> This gives you idea how hard it might be for newcomers. Scarce
> resources, no docs, explanations,
> installation instructions, roadmaps etc etc..
>
> So, this is what we should to take care of. Including of bug fixes, of
> course. :)
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> Hi!
>
> So much discussion about that little post... :)
>
> On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>> Yes but in that case
>> try 1.0
>> try 1.1 alpha
>
> Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :)

>> Hi!
>>
>> So much discussion about that little post... :)
>>
>> On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> Yes but in that case
>>> try 1.0
>>> try 1.1 alpha
>> Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :)
> I do not know what you are implying. But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo
> so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver
> and if all these stuff make sense.
> Conclusion
> - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes
> - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple.
> - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now.
>
>> Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing".
>>
>> And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I?
>>
>> I am not sure the website can/should be different - but fact remains that I got "fooled" by the fact that 1.0 was just released and I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :)
> Yes it really is.
> Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better.

>> Hi!
>>
>> So much discussion about that little post... :)
>>
>> On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> Yes but in that case
>>> try 1.0
>>> try 1.1 alpha
>>
>> Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :)
>
> I do not know what you are implying.

> Hi!
>
> On 05/30/2010 11:17 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> So much discussion about that little post... :)
>>>
>>> On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>> Yes but in that case
>>>> try 1.0
>>>> try 1.1 alpha
>>>
>>> Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :)
>>
>> I do not know what you are implying.
>
> Eh, "top posting". See this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
>
> So it was not an implication of anything, I just joked a little.
>
> ...but I see in this post that you are interleaving instead :)
>
>> But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo
>> so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver
>> and if all these stuff make sense.
>> Conclusion
>> - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes
>> - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple.
>> - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now.
>
> Yeah, I am all with you.
>
> Just wondering if... well, I chose 1.0 since it is clearly what the website "wants me to do" so to speak. And 1.1 is mentioned as "bleeding edge" etc.
>
> But if you think I will have a smoother ride in 1.1, then perhaps the site should somehow indicate that. But again, I really don't know if that is a good idea.
>
>>> Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing".
>>>
>>> And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I?
>>>
>
>> I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :)
>>
>> Yes it really is.
>> Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better.
>
> Then perhaps you *should* write that on the website somehow. Like:
>
> "Even though 1.1 is still in alpha development we feel it is even in its current state a much better environment than 1.0 for development. But it is of course not yet a stable baseline."
>
> Also, if you only backport showstoppers (and not "bugs") then 1.0 is as of today not even preferrable from a stability standpoint, or?
>
> regards, Göran
>
> PS. I am really trying to be constructive here, these problems are generic in nature and Squeak.org suffer from the exact same issues of course - devel vs stable etc. Just curious how Pharo should "talk to newcomers" about it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> Hi!
>
> On 05/30/2010 11:17 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> So much discussion about that little post... :)
>>>
>>> On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>> Yes but in that case
>>>> try 1.0
>>>> try 1.1 alpha
>>>
>>> Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :)
>>
>> I do not know what you are implying.
>
> Eh, "top posting". See this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
>
> So it was not an implication of anything, I just joked a little.
>
> ...but I see in this post that you are interleaving instead :)
>
>> But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo
>> so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver
>> and if all these stuff make sense.
>> Conclusion
>> - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes
>> - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple.
>> - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now.
>
> Yeah, I am all with you.
>
> Just wondering if... well, I chose 1.0 since it is clearly what the website "wants me to do" so to speak. And 1.1 is mentioned as "bleeding edge" etc.
>
> But if you think I will have a smoother ride in 1.1, then perhaps the site should somehow indicate that. But again, I really don't know if that is a good idea.
>
>>> Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing".
>>>
>>> And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I?
>>>
>
>> I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :)
>>
>> Yes it really is.
>> Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better.
>
> Then perhaps you *should* write that on the website somehow. Like:
>
> "Even though 1.1 is still in alpha development we feel it is even in its current state a much better environment than 1.0 for development. But it is of course not yet a stable baseline."
>
> Also, if you only backport showstoppers (and not "bugs") then 1.0 is as of today not even preferrable from a stability standpoint, or?
>
> regards, Göran
>
> PS. I am really trying to be constructive here, these problems are generic in nature and Squeak.org suffer from the exact same issues of course - devel vs stable etc. Just curious how Pharo should "talk to newcomers" about it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project