[Squeak 4.0] A Couple of Methods (PLEASE REVIEW)

> So to avoid pasting the whole license into
> SystemDictionary>>condenseSources, I added SystemDictionary>>license,
> which just answers a ByteString containing the license agreement, and
> makes the change to #condenseSources a one-liner. Note that I pasted
> verbatim what Andreas sent me; I would like it if folks could make
> sure I have the right text there. Another advantage to having the
> license live in it's own method is, it's easy to change if the SFC
> wants last-minute changes. A third advantage (and this just makes me
> smile) is you can print:
>
> [ Smalltalk license. ]
>
> Which answers the ByteString containing the text of the license
> agreement. Place your bets on how long it'll take Andreas to come up
> with a one line method that transforms legalese into friendly
> LOLspeak:P
>
> Andreas recommended the following test case to me:
>
> Filein the attachment SystemDictionary-license.st, followed by the
> attachment SystemDictionary-condenseSources.st.
>
> Then do... [ Smalltalk condenseSources. ]
>
> Afterwords, make sure it worked with...
>
> [ Smalltalk allClassesAndTraits do:[:cls| cls compileAll]. ]
>
> If anyone can recommend other interesting test cases around this,
> please let me know. The changes and sources files are still fairly
> arcane to the Fancy New Guy:)
>
>
> --
> Ron
>
>
>
>

> Hi Ronald!
>
> I published a change [1] to condenseSources yesterday, but your
> one-liner should fit in there as well.
>
> Alex
>
> [1] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/packages/2010-February/002800.html
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:53, Ronald Spengler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> So to avoid pasting the whole license into
>> SystemDictionary>>condenseSources, I added SystemDictionary>>license,
>> which just answers a ByteString containing the license agreement, and
>> makes the change to #condenseSources a one-liner. Note that I pasted
>> verbatim what Andreas sent me; I would like it if folks could make
>> sure I have the right text there. Another advantage to having the
>> license live in it's own method is, it's easy to change if the SFC
>> wants last-minute changes. A third advantage (and this just makes me
>> smile) is you can print:
>>
>> [ Smalltalk license. ]
>>
>> Which answers the ByteString containing the text of the license
>> agreement. Place your bets on how long it'll take Andreas to come up
>> with a one line method that transforms legalese into friendly
>> LOLspeak:P
>>
>> Andreas recommended the following test case to me:
>>
>> Filein the attachment SystemDictionary-license.st, followed by the
>> attachment SystemDictionary-condenseSources.st.
>>
>> Then do... [ Smalltalk condenseSources. ]
>>
>> Afterwords, make sure it worked with...
>>
>> [ Smalltalk allClassesAndTraits do:[:cls| cls compileAll]. ]
>>
>> If anyone can recommend other interesting test cases around this,
>> please let me know. The changes and sources files are still fairly
>> arcane to the Fancy New Guy:)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

> Remember that we plan to replay all of the changes from Trunk on top
> of the 4.0 release artifact in order to create 4.1.
>
> On Friday, February 26, 2010, Alexander Lazarević <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Ronald!
>>
>> I published a change [1] to condenseSources yesterday, but your
>> one-liner should fit in there as well.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> [1] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/packages/2010-February/002800.html
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:53, Ronald Spengler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> So to avoid pasting the whole license into
>>> SystemDictionary>>condenseSources, I added SystemDictionary>>license,
>>> which just answers a ByteString containing the license agreement, and
>>> makes the change to #condenseSources a one-liner. Note that I pasted
>>> verbatim what Andreas sent me; I would like it if folks could make
>>> sure I have the right text there. Another advantage to having the
>>> license live in it's own method is, it's easy to change if the SFC
>>> wants last-minute changes. A third advantage (and this just makes me
>>> smile) is you can print:
>>>
>>> [ Smalltalk license. ]
>>>
>>> Which answers the ByteString containing the text of the license
>>> agreement. Place your bets on how long it'll take Andreas to come up
>>> with a one line method that transforms legalese into friendly
>>> LOLspeak:P
>>>
>>> Andreas recommended the following test case to me:
>>>
>>> Filein the attachment SystemDictionary-license.st, followed by the
>>> attachment SystemDictionary-condenseSources.st.
>>>
>>> Then do... [ Smalltalk condenseSources. ]
>>>
>>> Afterwords, make sure it worked with...
>>>
>>> [ Smalltalk allClassesAndTraits do:[:cls| cls compileAll]. ]
>>>
>>> If anyone can recommend other interesting test cases around this,
>>> please let me know. The changes and sources files are still fairly
>>> arcane to the Fancy New Guy:)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ron
>
>

> So to avoid pasting the whole license into
> SystemDictionary>>condenseSources, I added SystemDictionary>>license,
> which just answers a ByteString containing the license agreement, and
> makes the change to #condenseSources a one-liner. Note that I pasted
> verbatim what Andreas sent me; I would like it if folks could make
> sure I have the right text there. Another advantage to having the
> license live in it's own method is, it's easy to change if the SFC
> wants last-minute changes. A third advantage (and this just makes me
> smile) is you can print:
>
> [ Smalltalk license. ]
>
> Which answers the ByteString containing the text of the license
> agreement. Place your bets on how long it'll take Andreas to come up
> with a one line method that transforms legalese into friendly
> LOLspeak:P
>
> Andreas recommended the following test case to me:
>
> Filein the attachment SystemDictionary-license.st, followed by the
> attachment SystemDictionary-condenseSources.st.
>
> Then do... [ Smalltalk condenseSources. ]
>
> Afterwords, make sure it worked with...
>
> [ Smalltalk allClassesAndTraits do:[:cls| cls compileAll]. ]
>
> If anyone can recommend other interesting test cases around this,
> please let me know. The changes and sources files are still fairly
> arcane to the Fancy New Guy:)
>
>
> --
> Ron
> <SystemDictionary-license.st><SystemDictionary-condenseSources.st>

> Please could you put #licence somewhere else. Smalltalk is way overloaded.
>
> Options I can think of include:
>
> a) SystemVersion class #licence
>
> My preferred option
> b) New class SystemLicence in the category System-Info
> using the class comment, retrievable via SystemLicence comment.
>
> thanks in advance
>
> Keith
>
>> So to avoid pasting the whole license into
>> SystemDictionary>>condenseSources, I added SystemDictionary>>license,
>> which just answers a ByteString containing the license agreement, and
>> makes the change to #condenseSources a one-liner. Note that I pasted
>> verbatim what Andreas sent me; I would like it if folks could make
>> sure I have the right text there. Another advantage to having the
>> license live in it's own method is, it's easy to change if the SFC
>> wants last-minute changes. A third advantage (and this just makes me
>> smile) is you can print:
>>
>> [ Smalltalk license. ]
>>
>> Which answers the ByteString containing the text of the license
>> agreement. Place your bets on how long it'll take Andreas to come up
>> with a one line method that transforms legalese into friendly
>> LOLspeak:P
>>
>> Andreas recommended the following test case to me:
>>
>> Filein the attachment SystemDictionary-license.st, followed by the
>> attachment SystemDictionary-condenseSources.st.
>>
>> Then do... [ Smalltalk condenseSources. ]
>>
>> Afterwords, make sure it worked with...
>>
>> [ Smalltalk allClassesAndTraits do:[:cls| cls compileAll]. ]
>>
>> If anyone can recommend other interesting test cases around this,
>> please let me know. The changes and sources files are still fairly
>> arcane to the Fancy New Guy:)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ron
>> <SystemDictionary-license.st><SystemDictionary-condenseSources.st>
>
>
>

> On 2/27/2010 12:21 AM, keith wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with the overload aspect but [Smalltalk license] is just to
>>> good not to use it.
>>
>> But its not really Smalltalk's licence it is "this system's licence" how
>> about
>
> My point is it's idiomatic (the Python folks call it "pythonic"). Just
> compare:
>
> Smalltalk license.
> SmalltalkImage current license.
> SystemVersion current license.
>
> Which one would you guess at?
>
>> SqueaksLicence yo just print like
>
> Totally :-)
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>

> Heh..
> Don't forget about copyright as well :)
>
>
> On 27 February 2010 01:26, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> On 2/27/2010 12:21 AM, keith wrote:
>>    
>>>> I agree with the overload aspect but [Smalltalk license] is just to
>>>> good not to use it.
>>>>        
>>> But its not really Smalltalk's licence it is "this system's licence" how
>>> about
>>>      
>> My point is it's idiomatic (the Python folks call it "pythonic"). Just
>> compare:
>>
>> Smalltalk license.
>> SmalltalkImage current license.
>> SystemVersion current license.
>>
>> Which one would you guess at?
>>
>>    
>>> SqueaksLicence yo just print like
>>>      
>> Totally :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>>
>>    

> Yes. We already have Smalltalk copyright. It mentions Xerox and Apple. And we also have Utilities copyrightNotice that only mentions Apple. They it doesn't agree with the posted license that only mentions The Squeak Community. What would be the proper copyright notice and why?
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
> Heh..
> Don't forget about copyright as well :)
>
>
> On 27 February 2010 01:26, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/27/2010 12:21 AM, keith wrote:
>
>
> I agree with the overload aspect but [Smalltalk license] is just to
> good not to use it.
>
>
> But its not really Smalltalk's licence it is "this system's licence" how
> about
>
>
> My point is it's idiomatic (the Python folks call it "pythonic"). Just
> compare:
>
> Smalltalk license.
> SmalltalkImage current license.
> SystemVersion current license.
>
> Which one would you guess at?
>
>
>
> SqueaksLicence yo just print like
>
>
> Totally :-)
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Delegating to another class just adds complexity IMO; the only reason
> #license exists is because I didn't want to clutter #condenseSources
> with it, and we need that method to put the license statement at the
> top of the sources file. I think it makes sense therefore to keep
> these methods close to one another.
>
> It was the simplest thing that could possibly work.
>
> In any event, we can change it in 4.1 if we don't like it. In the
> meantime, though, I just want to wrap this thing and ship it. We can
> argue about what color the bikeshed should be after Squeak is free, eh
> compadres?

> On Friday, February 26, 2010, Juan Vuletich<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Yes. We already have Smalltalk copyright. It mentions Xerox and Apple. And we also have Utilities copyrightNotice that only mentions Apple. They it doesn't agree with the posted license that only mentions The Squeak Community. What would be the proper copyright notice and why?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Juan Vuletich
>>
>> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> Heh..
>> Don't forget about copyright as well :)
>>
>>
>> On 27 February 2010 01:26, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/27/2010 12:21 AM, keith wrote:
>>
>>
>> I agree with the overload aspect but [Smalltalk license] is just to
>> good not to use it.
>>
>>
>> But its not really Smalltalk's licence it is "this system's licence" how
>> about
>>
>>
>> My point is it's idiomatic (the Python folks call it "pythonic"). Just
>> compare:
>>
>> Smalltalk license.
>> SmalltalkImage current license.
>> SystemVersion current license.
>>
>> Which one would you guess at?
>>
>>
>>
>> SqueaksLicence yo just print like
>>
>>
>> Totally :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

> On 2/27/2010 2:58 AM, Ronald Spengler wrote:
>
> Delegating to another class just adds complexity IMO; the only reason
> #license exists is because I didn't want to clutter #condenseSources
> with it, and we need that method to put the license statement at the
> top of the sources file. I think it makes sense therefore to keep
> these methods close to one another.
>
> It was the simplest thing that could possibly work.
>
> In any event, we can change it in 4.1 if we don't like it. In the
> meantime, though, I just want to wrap this thing and ship it. We can
> argue about what color the bikeshed should be after Squeak is free, eh
> compadres?
>
>
> Plus, you're the release manager and at this point this is a release issue (in fact it's a release blocker since we can't ship 4.0 before we have a resolution). So it's your choice how to resolve it for 4.0.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>
> On Friday, February 26, 2010, Juan Vuletich<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
> Yes. We already have Smalltalk copyright. It mentions Xerox and Apple. And we also have Utilities copyrightNotice that only mentions Apple. They it doesn't agree with the posted license that only mentions The Squeak Community. What would be the proper copyright notice and why?
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
> Heh..
> Don't forget about copyright as well :)
>
>
> On 27 February 2010 01:26, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>
> On 2/27/2010 12:21 AM, keith wrote:
>
>
> I agree with the overload aspect but [Smalltalk license] is just to
> good not to use it.
>
>
> But its not really Smalltalk's licence it is "this system's licence" how
> about
>
>
> My point is it's idiomatic (the Python folks call it "pythonic"). Just
> compare:
>
> Smalltalk license.
> SmalltalkImage current license.
> SystemVersion current license.
>
> Which one would you guess at?
>
>
>
> SqueaksLicence yo just print like
>
>
> Totally :-)
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> The details aren't important, and it doesn't matter if the ball takes
> a tiny scuff any more than it matters if I have to break my legs doing
> it. Most certainly, the time to discuss tactics was over before I
> started running.
>
> I would appreciate it very much if we could keep the threads marked
> [Squeak 4.0] clear of chatter unrelated to obstacles to, and
> objectives of, the relicense release.
>
> Thank you for your support!
>
> On Friday, February 26, 2010, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> On 2/27/2010 2:58 AM, Ronald Spengler wrote:
>>
>> Delegating to another class just adds complexity IMO; the only reason
>> #license exists is because I didn't want to clutter #condenseSources
>> with it, and we need that method to put the license statement at the
>> top of the sources file. I think it makes sense therefore to keep
>> these methods close to one another.
>>
>> It was the simplest thing that could possibly work.
>>
>> In any event, we can change it in 4.1 if we don't like it. In the
>> meantime, though, I just want to wrap this thing and ship it. We can
>> argue about what color the bikeshed should be after Squeak is free, eh
>> compadres?
>>
>>
>> Plus, you're the release manager and at this point this is a release issue (in fact it's a release blocker since we can't ship 4.0 before we have a resolution). So it's your choice how to resolve it for 4.0.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>    - Andreas
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 26, 2010, Juan Vuletich<[hidden email]>    wrote:
>>
>> Yes. We already have Smalltalk copyright. It mentions Xerox and Apple. And we also have Utilities copyrightNotice that only mentions Apple. They it doesn't agree with the posted license that only mentions The Squeak Community. What would be the proper copyright notice and why?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Juan Vuletich
>>
>> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> Heh..
>> Don't forget about copyright as well :)
>>
>>
>> On 27 February 2010 01:26, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>    wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/27/2010 12:21 AM, keith wrote:
>>
>>
>> I agree with the overload aspect but [Smalltalk license] is just to
>> good not to use it.
>>
>>
>> But its not really Smalltalk's licence it is "this system's licence" how
>> about
>>
>>
>> My point is it's idiomatic (the Python folks call it "pythonic"). Just
>> compare:
>>
>> Smalltalk license.
>> SmalltalkImage current license.
>> SystemVersion current license.
>>
>> Which one would you guess at?
>>
>>
>>
>> SqueaksLicence yo just print like
>>
>>
>> Totally :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>    - Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

>
> On 2/27/2010 12:21 AM, keith wrote:
>>> I agree with the overload aspect but [Smalltalk license] is just to
>>> good not to use it.
>>
>> But its not really Smalltalk's licence it is "this system's licence" how
>> about
>
> My point is it's idiomatic (the Python folks call it "pythonic"). Just compare:
>
> Smalltalk license.
> SmalltalkImage current license.
> SystemVersion current license.
>
> Which one would you guess at?
>
>> SqueaksLicence yo just print like
>
> Totally :-)
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>