What about making the configuration browser more visible?

<base href="x-msg://960/">Hi,

Sean,

What do I think? I think that's a loaded question:)

Honestly? I THINK that we've reached a cross roads for Monticello/Metacello. I THINK of Metacello as a pontoon bridge that keeps goods and services flowing while we build the real bridge.

The "relentless evolution" of Pharo puts pressure on all parts of the ecosystem, in a good way.

As developers, this evolutionary pressure is experienced as pain:

  - pain in having to port perfectly good code to
    yet another version of Pharo
  - pain in having to wait for other developers to
    port their projects
  - pain in finding new bugs in parts of the system
    that "used to work"
  - pain in having to work in a system without the
    high level tools that you'd like (because they
    haven't been ported yet)

This is not a complaint. This is the reality. We can fold under the pressure or we can grow stronger.

Pharo is evolving for all of the right reasons so we must respond and evolve and relieve the pain without surrendering progress:

  Change is painful.
  Change is necessary.
  Therefore pain is necessary.

Metacello was originally developed to address specific pain points. It did a good job of addressing pain in some areas and not so good in other areas and of course, it also introduced a set of new pain points...

Monticello/Metacello spans the following broad areas:

  version control
  configuration management
  build management  

And the strain of trying to address each of these areas is showing.

I THINK that it doesn't make sense to continue to try to address all three areas under one umbrella. The version control area is probably Metacello's weakest point and is the area where the most difficult technical problems remain to be addressed.

I THINK the best answer at the point is to divide and conquer.

Thus the "crossroads."

I THINK that Git/GitHub is superior to Monticello/Metacello/SqueakSource. See my talk on "Practical Git for Smalltalk" for my arguments[1].

I THINK that as a community we will be better off embracing the technology available in Git/GitHub than reinventing that wheel. Not only does Git/GitHub make it possible to share Smalltalk source between dialects (by having shared source code format[2] and a shared version control system), but Git/GitHub removes one of the barriers that newcomers to Smalltalk face: Git/Github is familiar to millions of developers.

By eliminating version control responsibility from Metacello and embracing Git/GitHub a whole set of pain points are addressed.

We have the new pain points of learning and using Git/GitHub, but with Metacello we have yet to INVENT the capabilities that Git/GitHub brings to the table, so I THINK we are ahead of the game by embracing Git/GitHub.

If you skim through the "Metacello Scripting API" README[3] you'll get a taste of how I THINK Metacello can bridge the gap between Monticello/Metacello/SqueakSource and FileTree[4]/Metacello/Git/GitHub. Don't get me wrong, there are still some areas to be figured out ... Symbolic versions occupy a unique niche in our environment and I haven't quite figured out a way to replace them in the git/github world....

I THINK that the two worlds (mcz and git) must coexist for a long time so there must be a seamless integration of the two.

The scripting API is being designed such that it can be included in the base image, so I THINK the scripting API (and Git/GitHub) will go a long ways towards removing the mystery from Configuration loads, while making the supporting tool set easier to build.

I am still working out some of the finer points of integrating Metacello and Git/Github, but I'm hoping to have some concrete developments in the next month or so ...

Dale


[1] http://portal.sliderocket.com/vmware/STIC-2012-Practical-Git-for-Smalltalk
[2] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/Cypress/blob/master/README.md
[3] https://github.com/dalehenrich/MetacelloScriptingApiSpec/blob/master/README.md
[4] https://github.com/dalehenrich/filetree/blob/master/README.md


----- Original Message -----
| From: "Sean P. DeNigris" <[hidden email]>
| To: [hidden email]
| Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:08:17 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?
|
|
| Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote
| >
| > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary
| > instructions
| > over time?
| >
|
| I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child
| grow
| up...
|
| For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From
| loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic
| versions
| (which were sorely needed).
|
| The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have
| preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on
| someone
| manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods.
| Without
| these, the API is hidden away in the project class.
|
| Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo
| to load
| some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I
| think the
| system browser would be much more helpful.
|
| Dale, what do you think about all this?
|
| HTH,
| Sean
|
| p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects
| and
| updating the configs...
|
| --
| View this message in context:
| http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visible-tp4590573p4594228.html
| Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|
|

Sean,

In my last post, I provided my vision of the future ... for the present, the answer is "what you see is what you get" ...

When a new version of Pharo comes on the scene, the challenge is to port the existing configurations to the new version ... it does not happen magically and it does not happen over night and it does not happen without old fashioned effort ...

When a new version of Pharo identifying configurations that don't work in the platform is a necessary task... it's no different than a bug in the base class library:

  feature x does not work
  configuration y does not load

It would be nice if software and configurations could be written without bugs or could be written once to run on all conceivable future versions, but this is not the case ...

Defining a #stable version for pharo1.4.x is a good way to indicate that the configuration has been ported to Pharo1.4 and loading the #stable version of a project is a good way to get the correct version of the project based on which platform you are on.

If loading the #stable version blows up, that sounds like a bug to me, either in a configuration or the software itself ...

If you don't want to experience the pain of developing on a new platform, then don't move to the new platform until the hubbub has died down ...

Dale

----- Original Message -----
| From: "Sean P. DeNigris" <[hidden email]>
| To: [hidden email]
| Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:08:17 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?
|
|
| Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote
| >
| > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary
| > instructions
| > over time?
| >
|
| I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child
| grow
| up...
|
| For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From
| loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic
| versions
| (which were sorely needed).
|
| The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have
| preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on
| someone
| manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods.
| Without
| these, the API is hidden away in the project class.
|
| Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo
| to load
| some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I
| think the
| system browser would be much more helpful.
|
| Dale, what do you think about all this?
|
| HTH,
| Sean
|
| p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects
| and
| updating the configs...
|
| --
| View this message in context:
| http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visible-tp4590573p4594228.html
| Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|
|

No real argument, but it's not "my choice" - it's the only option.  I had parsers not work and *COMPLETE* meltdowns that would scare away any new user, both until I followed the advice to shun the symbolic versions.

Yes, there are gaps to close.




________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Dale Henrichs [[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:26 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making  the     configuration   browser more visible?

Bill,

If you value the opinions of "your experts" over the good advice that you have received on this thread so far then that is your choice.

I'd say that your "experts" have a gap to close... and you should expect them to close it...

Dale
----- Original Message -----
| From: "Wilhelm K Schwab" <[hidden email]>
| To: [hidden email]
| Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:23:14 AM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making        the     configuration   browser more visible?
|
| It seems very reasonable to have such a crucial infrastructure to
| have some base support in the core image.  But I have had experts
| tell me to *never* load a symbolic version.  There is a gap to
| close...
|
|
|
| ________________________________________
| From: [hidden email]
| [[hidden email]] on behalf of Sean P.
| DeNigris [[hidden email]]
| Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:08 AM
| To: [hidden email]
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the      configuration
|   browser more visible?
|
| Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote
| >
| > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary
| > instructions
| > over time?
| >
|
| I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child
| grow
| up...
|
| For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From
| loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic
| versions
| (which were sorely needed).
|
| The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have
| preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely on
| someone
| manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods.
| Without
| these, the API is hidden away in the project class.
|
| Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and Pharo
| to load
| some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I
| think the
| system browser would be much more helpful.
|
| Dale, what do you think about all this?
|
| HTH,
| Sean
|
| p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing projects
| and
| updating the configs...
|
| --
| View this message in context:
| http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visible-tp4590573p4594228.html
| Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|
|
|

Bill,

I agree with the "no real argument" bit:)

Dae

----- Original Message -----
| From: "Wilhelm K Schwab" <[hidden email]>
| To: [hidden email]
| Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 3:08:33 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible?
|
| No real argument, but it's not "my choice" - it's the only option.  I
| had parsers not work and *COMPLETE* meltdowns that would scare away
| any new user, both until I followed the advice to shun the symbolic
| versions.
|
| Yes, there are gaps to close.
|
|
|
|
| ________________________________________
| From: [hidden email]
| [[hidden email]] on behalf of Dale
| Henrichs [[hidden email]]
| Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:26 PM
| To: [hidden email]
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making  the     configuration
|   browser more visible?
|
| Bill,
|
| If you value the opinions of "your experts" over the good advice that
| you have received on this thread so far then that is your choice.
|
| I'd say that your "experts" have a gap to close... and you should
| expect them to close it...
|
| Dale
| ----- Original Message -----
| | From: "Wilhelm K Schwab" <[hidden email]>
| | To: [hidden email]
| | Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:23:14 AM
| | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making        the
| |     configuration   browser more visible?
| |
| | It seems very reasonable to have such a crucial infrastructure to
| | have some base support in the core image.  But I have had experts
| | tell me to *never* load a symbolic version.  There is a gap to
| | close...
| |
| |
| |
| | ________________________________________
| | From: [hidden email]
| | [[hidden email]] on behalf of Sean P.
| | DeNigris [[hidden email]]
| | Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:08 AM
| | To: [hidden email]
| | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the
| |      configuration
| |   browser more visible?
| |
| | Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote
| | >
| | > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary
| | > instructions
| | > over time?
| | >
| |
| | I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child
| | grow
| | up...
| |
| | For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From
| | loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic
| | versions
| | (which were sorely needed).
| |
| | The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have
| | preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely
| | on
| | someone
| | manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods.
| | Without
| | these, the API is hidden away in the project class.
| |
| | Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and
| | Pharo
| | to load
| | some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I
| | think the
| | system browser would be much more helpful.
| |
| | Dale, what do you think about all this?
| |
| | HTH,
| | Sean
| |
| | p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing
| | projects
| | and
| | updating the configs...
| |
| | --
| | View this message in context:
| | http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visible-tp4590573p4594228.html
| | Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|

Dale Henrichs wrote

In my last post, I provided my vision of the future

That was very helpful. I can see the big picture much better now...

Dale Henrichs wrote

If you don't want to experience the pain of developing on a new platform, then don't move to the new platform until the hubbub has died down ...

I'm perfectly happy, but it seemed like nobody knew where bill was coming from, while the API and best practices have been rapidly evolving...

Sean

----- Original Message -----
| From: "Sean P. DeNigris" <[hidden email]>
| Dale Henrichs wrote
| >
| > If you don't want to experience the pain of developing on a new
| > platform,
| > then don't move to the new platform until the hubbub has died down
| > ...
| >
| I'm perfectly happy, but it seemed like nobody knew where bill was
| coming
| from, while the API and best practices have been rapidly evolving...

Thanks Sean,

The more oars in the water, the better:)

Dale

I stayed on 1.1.1 for a long time for just these reasons.   If want people to test new versions, there needs to be at least some hope that they will work.




________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Sean P. DeNigris [[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 6:44 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making  the     configuration   browser more visible?

Dale Henrichs wrote
>
> In my last post, I provided my vision of the future
>
That was very helpful. I can see the big picture much better now...


Dale Henrichs wrote
>
> If you don't want to experience the pain of developing on a new platform,
> then don't move to the new platform until the hubbub has died down ...
>
I'm perfectly happy, but it seemed like nobody knew where bill was coming
from, while the API and best practices have been rapidly evolving...

Sean

--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visible-tp4590573p4595435.html
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Am 30.04.2012 um 00:11 schrieb Schwab,Wilhelm K:

> I stayed on 1.1.1 for a long time for just these reasons.   If want people to test new versions, there needs to be at least some hope that they will work.
>
To be honest I'm not sure if you should upgrade to 1.2. Just wait a little more. And then remember that it will be close to impossible to load an external module. If you don't need one, good, if not you are in serious trouble.

Norbert

I am using 1.3 now, but dread another round of "no, install it THIS way..." re 1.4.  The CogVM/linux looks for stuff in the wrong places on Ubuntu, but symlinks (kinda shameful) fix that with some effort.

Alien callbacks mixed with FFI do appear to be a problem, and I have some other FFI related challenges that appear to be "unjust."  I've been over and over the code looking for mistakes on my part, and see nothing that *should* be correlated with the error messages.  Looking forward to Spok's arrival.

Bill


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Norbert Hartl [[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:54 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making  the     configuration   browser more visible?

Am 30.04.2012 um 00:11 schrieb Schwab,Wilhelm K:

> I stayed on 1.1.1 for a long time for just these reasons.   If want people to test new versions, there needs to be at least some hope that they will work.
>
To be honest I'm not sure if you should upgrade to 1.2. Just wait a little more. And then remember that it will be close to impossible to load an external module. If you don't need one, good, if not you are in serious trouble.

Norbert

Let me repeat it again (reread the vision document)

we will put in place a process that:
        - check all the configurations of a given repository (for each versions)
        so for example for MetaRepoForPharo1.4 and MetaRepoForPharo20…
        - each configuration will be loaded, test runs, rules executed.
        - we will have inbox for each repository,
        - if a configuration does not pass, it will move the configurations into an outbox

Then people will be able to load configurations that have been loaded and verified.

Stef

Sounds great!

Sounds great!!


________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse [[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 1:37 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What       about   making  the     configuration   browser more visible?

Let me repeat it again (reread the vision document)

we will put in place a process that:
        - check all the configurations of a given repository (for each versions)
        so for example for MetaRepoForPharo1.4 and MetaRepoForPharo20…
        - each configuration will be loaded, test runs, rules executed.
        - we will have inbox for each repository,
        - if a configuration does not pass, it will move the configurations into an outbox

Then people will be able to load configurations that have been loaded and verified.

Stef