Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

Squeak-dev is not a fork

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

12 messages Options

Damien Cassou-3

Squeak-dev is not a fork

I've heard many times that squeak-dev is yet another fork of Squeak.
It's NOT the case from my point of view because:

- squeak-dev is built on top of the last squeak release and beta versions
- there is not a single patch applied in squeak-dev
- it's only an aggregation of already existing packages that anyone
can load in his base image

--
Damien Cassou

Tapple Gao

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:29:42AM +0200, Damien Cassou wrote:
> I've heard many times that squeak-dev is yet another fork of Squeak.
> It's NOT the case from my point of view because:
>
> - squeak-dev is built on top of the last squeak release and beta versions
> - there is not a single patch applied in squeak-dev
> - it's only an aggregation of already existing packages that anyone
> can load in his base image

I agree. it is a distribution, not a fork. Thanks for making it!

--
Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/
Help improve Squeak Documentation: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/808

Blake-5

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

In reply to this post by Damien Cassou-3

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:29:42 -0700, Damien Cassou
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've heard many times that squeak-dev is yet another fork of Squeak.
> It's NOT the case from my point of view because:
>
> - squeak-dev is built on top of the last squeak release and beta versions
> - there is not a single patch applied in squeak-dev
> - it's only an aggregation of already existing packages that anyone
> can load in his base image

Agreed. I've been puzzled by this apparent misapplication of the word
"fork", too.

Göran Krampe

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

In reply to this post by Damien Cassou-3

Hi!

> I've heard many times that squeak-dev is yet another fork of Squeak.
> It's NOT the case from my point of view because:
>
> - squeak-dev is built on top of the last squeak release and beta versions
> - there is not a single patch applied in squeak-dev
> - it's only an aggregation of already existing packages that anyone
> can load in his base image

I actually meant squeak.org when I wrote Squeak-dev. I was referring to
the image maintained by the developers typically hanging on the squeak-dev
mailinglist - and not your image which is called Squeak-Dev. Sorry for
the bad choice of words. :)

So I haven't viewed your image as a fork, at least not yet. ;)

regards, Göran

Damien Cassou-3

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

2007/8/15, Göran Krampe <[hidden email]>:

> > I've heard many times that squeak-dev is yet another fork of Squeak.
> > It's NOT the case from my point of view because:
> >
> > - squeak-dev is built on top of the last squeak release and beta versions
> > - there is not a single patch applied in squeak-dev
> > - it's only an aggregation of already existing packages that anyone
> > can load in his base image
>
> I actually meant squeak.org when I wrote Squeak-dev. I was referring to
> the image maintained by the developers typically hanging on the squeak-dev
> mailinglist - and not your image which is called Squeak-Dev. Sorry for
> the bad choice of words. :)
>
> So I haven't viewed your image as a fork, at least not yet. ;)

Ok :-). But I heard it already that's why I wrote this mail. I hope
things are clearer now.

--
Damien Cassou

Igor Stasenko

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

Since its not a fork, and obviously not a spoon, and not mainstream,
then what short term can be used to identify it?

Joking.. :)

On 15/08/07, Damien Cassou <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2007/8/15, Göran Krampe <[hidden email]>:
> > > I've heard many times that squeak-dev is yet another fork of Squeak.
> > > It's NOT the case from my point of view because:
> > >
> > > - squeak-dev is built on top of the last squeak release and beta versions
> > > - there is not a single patch applied in squeak-dev
> > > - it's only an aggregation of already existing packages that anyone
> > > can load in his base image
> >
> > I actually meant squeak.org when I wrote Squeak-dev. I was referring to
> > the image maintained by the developers typically hanging on the squeak-dev
> > mailinglist - and not your image which is called Squeak-Dev. Sorry for
> > the bad choice of words. :)
> >
> > So I haven't viewed your image as a fork, at least not yet. ;)
>
> Ok :-). But I heard it already that's why I wrote this mail. I hope
> things are clearer now.
>
> --
> Damien Cassou
>
>
>
>

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Damien Cassou-3

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

2007/8/15, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]>:
> Since its not a fork, and obviously not a spoon, and not mainstream,
> then what short term can be used to identify it?

A distribution is perfect to me. Is really like a Linux distribution.

> Joking.. :)
>
> On 15/08/07, Damien Cassou <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 2007/8/15, Göran Krampe <[hidden email]>:
> > > > I've heard many times that squeak-dev is yet another fork of Squeak.
> > > > It's NOT the case from my point of view because:
> > > >
> > > > - squeak-dev is built on top of the last squeak release and beta versions
> > > > - there is not a single patch applied in squeak-dev
> > > > - it's only an aggregation of already existing packages that anyone
> > > > can load in his base image
> > >
> > > I actually meant squeak.org when I wrote Squeak-dev. I was referring to
> > > the image maintained by the developers typically hanging on the squeak-dev
> > > mailinglist - and not your image which is called Squeak-Dev. Sorry for
> > > the bad choice of words. :)
> > >
> > > So I haven't viewed your image as a fork, at least not yet. ;)
> >
> > Ok :-). But I heard it already that's why I wrote this mail. I hope
> > things are clearer now.
> >
> > --
> > Damien Cassou
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>
>
>

--
Damien Cassou

Edgar J. De Cleene

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko

El 8/15/07 9:08 AM, "Igor Stasenko" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> Since its not a fork, and obviously not a spoon, and not mainstream,
then what
> short term can be used to identify it?

Joking.. :)

Maybe a knife ?
Sure Damien image is putting some butter on bread ....

Edgar

Lex Spoon-3

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

In reply to this post by Damien Cassou-3

Lex Spoon-3

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

In reply to this post by Damien Cassou-3

"Damien Cassou" <[hidden email]> writes:
> I've heard many times that squeak-dev is yet another fork of Squeak.
> It's NOT the case from my point of view because:
>
> - squeak-dev is built on top of the last squeak release and beta versions
> - there is not a single patch applied in squeak-dev
> - it's only an aggregation of already existing packages that anyone
> can load in his base image

I did not realize you felt this way, but it is nice to hear. How do
you square this view, though, with your recent inclusion of the
Monticello 1.5 patches? These patches change the core image so much
that their author says the word "patch" is not an adequate word to
describe them.

I would think that, for a developer's universe compatible with 3.10,
we need to also use the standard version of Monticello, whatever that
version may end up being.

Lex

Damien Cassou-3

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

19 Aug 2007 12:16:57 -0400, Lex Spoon <[hidden email]>:

> "Damien Cassou" <[hidden email]> writes:
> > I've heard many times that squeak-dev is yet another fork of Squeak.
> > It's NOT the case from my point of view because:
> >
> > - squeak-dev is built on top of the last squeak release and beta versions
> > - there is not a single patch applied in squeak-dev
> > - it's only an aggregation of already existing packages that anyone
> > can load in his base image
>
> I did not realize you felt this way, but it is nice to hear. How do
> you square this view, though, with your recent inclusion of the
> Monticello 1.5 patches? These patches change the core image so much
> that their author says the word "patch" is not an adequate word to
> describe them.

I don't think including Monticello1.5 in future squeak-dev releases
can be seen as a patch to Squeak. This is because, for me, Monticello
is just a package. If an enhanced version, maintained by someone
interested, is available, I would like people to start using it to
discover bugs. However, Monticello1.5 currently has a bug which
prevents me from releasing a new squeak-dev based on it.

--
Damien Cassou

Lex Spoon-3

Re: Squeak-dev is not a fork

"Damien Cassou" <[hidden email]> writes:
> I don't think including Monticello1.5 in future squeak-dev releases
> can be seen as a patch to Squeak. This is because, for me, Monticello
> is just a package. If an enhanced version, maintained by someone
> interested, is available, I would like people to start using it to
> discover bugs. However, Monticello1.5 currently has a bug which
> prevents me from releasing a new squeak-dev based on it.

That's all fine, but you are still describing non-standard patches to
the core image. Many people would call that a fork.

In my opinion, it would best to coordinate with the release team
on this, at least as a place to start.

Lex