On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 1 February 2011 15:44, Levente Uzonyi <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 February 2011 01:47, Nicolas Cellier
>>> <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The fact is that, while many patches find their way from Squeak to
>>>> Pharo, very few take the other way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Frankly, i had the opposite impression.
>>> For instance, Sets with nil already have more than year in Squeak,
>>> but still didn't found their way into Pharo.
>>
>> This not related to what Nicolas wrote. He wrote that a lot more patches go
>> from Squeak to Pharo, than from Pharo to Squeak. The latter is close to
>> zero, while the first is between 300 and 800 (based on the Pharo issue
>> tracker. 400-900 including the non-closed issues). So I wonder why did you
>> have the opposite impression.
>>
>>
> I doubt that Squeak wants to integrate Etoys cleanup :).
> Squeak community are much more conservative towards major
> refactorings/changing APIs etc etc.
> And given that most major changes in Pharo are for either throwing out
> some old stuff or do complete rewrite,
> this gives an answer why you don't see changes flowing widely from
> Pharo to Squeak.
This doesn't anwser at all why you had the impression that more Pharo
changes are going to Squeak, than the other way. On the contrary
it demonstrates why you think Pharo changes don't get integrated into
Squeak.
> As for minor level changes, or kernel/compiler changes - we are in
> sync .. because both camps paying attention in
> keeping core in healthy state. But you should know it yourself,
> because you are taking part in that. :)
No, we are not in sync and it's hard to tell all the differences. Just try
to load a package developed for Pharo into Squeak and you'll see how much
fixes you have to do to make it work. Or just try to maintain a package
for both platforms.
Levente
>
>> Levente
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>
Locked
