Smalltalk › Amber Smalltalk

Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

21 messages Options

gokr

Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

Hi all!

Ok, so we need to get a new release out :) - we all know that.

Currently we have 5 issues listed for 0.9.1:

https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber/issues?milestone=2&state=open

I think Nicolas should/will go through the current list of issues and
possibly add a few to 0.9.1 :) - but feel free to already mention your
thoughts on what we need to include in 0.9.1 from the full list of issues.

Persopnally: The two amberc bugs are related and IMHO would be nice to
fix, so I will focus on that for 0.9.1 and then I will try to get more
Package funkiness into 0.9.2 instead.

We have wanted to do 0.9.1 for quite some time - and more or less
intended to just make a "dump" on what we have, so please be
"conservative" and only propose fixing issues you *really* feel needs to
be fixed for a new release. ;)

Same goes for pull requests of course. I haven't looked at the one that
is lined up from Laurent - it looks pretty hefty, it must be several
things, right?

regards, Göran

Bernat Romagosa

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

I could work on this one, it looks easy enough: https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber/issues/85

Is there a list of wanted tags? Do we wanna include HTML5 tags like audio, video, progress, etc?

Cheers,

2011/11/2 Göran Krampe <[hidden email]>

Hi all!

Ok, so we need to get a new release out :) - we all know that.

Currently we have 5 issues listed for 0.9.1:

https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber/issues?milestone=2&state=open

I think Nicolas should/will go through the current list of issues and possibly add a few to 0.9.1 :) - but feel free to already mention your thoughts on what we need to include in 0.9.1 from the full list of issues.

Persopnally: The two amberc bugs are related and IMHO would be nice to fix, so I will focus on that for 0.9.1 and then I will try to get more Package funkiness into 0.9.2 instead.

We have wanted to do 0.9.1 for quite some time - and more or less intended to just make a "dump" on what we have, so please be "conservative" and only propose fixing issues you *really* feel needs to be fixed for a new release. ;)

Same goes for pull requests of course. I haven't looked at the one that is lined up from Laurent - it looks pretty hefty, it must be several things, right?

regards, Göran

--
Bernat Romagosa.

Stefan Krecher-2

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

In reply to this post by gokr

Hi,

i just added an issue - how are labels ("bug", "feature") added? I was not able to assign a milestone.

Another question: i'm still working on the package-server (with serverside amber) - where should i put the code?

Should i use my git amber-clone with a special branch? Or would it be better to use an own project on git?

regards,

Stefan

2011/11/2 Göran Krampe <[hidden email]>

Hi all!

Ok, so we need to get a new release out :) - we all know that.

Currently we have 5 issues listed for 0.9.1:

https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber/issues?milestone=2&state=open

I think Nicolas should/will go through the current list of issues and possibly add a few to 0.9.1 :) - but feel free to already mention your thoughts on what we need to include in 0.9.1 from the full list of issues.

Persopnally: The two amberc bugs are related and IMHO would be nice to fix, so I will focus on that for 0.9.1 and then I will try to get more Package funkiness into 0.9.2 instead.

We have wanted to do 0.9.1 for quite some time - and more or less intended to just make a "dump" on what we have, so please be "conservative" and only propose fixing issues you *really* feel needs to be fixed for a new release. ;)

Same goes for pull requests of course. I haven't looked at the one that is lined up from Laurent - it looks pretty hefty, it must be several things, right?

regards, Göran

--
Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Inf. Stefan Krecher
Neulander Str. 17, 27374 Visselhövede
Tel +49(0)4262 958848
mobil +49(0)172 3608616
http://krecher.com

gokr

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

In reply to this post by Bernat Romagosa

On 11/02/2011 10:24 AM, Bernat Romagosa wrote:
> I could work on this one, it looks easy enough:
> https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber/issues/85
>
> Is there a list of wanted tags? Do we wanna include HTML5 tags like
> audio, video, progress, etc?

Synch with Nicolas because he has just implemented a canvas for js for
the customer where I work right now:

https://github.com/NicolasPetton/htmlCanvas

...I think he wants to reuse "lessons learned" from there.

regards, Göran

gokr

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

In reply to this post by Stefan Krecher-2

On 11/02/2011 10:39 AM, Stefan Krecher wrote:
> Hi,
> i just added an issue - how are labels ("bug", "feature") added? I was
> not able to assign a milestone.

Fixed. The issue on github I mean, not the bug itself :)

> Another question: i'm still working on the package-server (with
> serverside amber) - where should i put the code?
> Should i use my git amber-clone with a special branch? Or would it be
> better to use an own project on git?

Not sure, Nicolas?

regards, Göran

Nicolas Petton

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

In reply to this post by gokr

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 10:49 +0100, Göran Krampe wrote:

> On 11/02/2011 10:24 AM, Bernat Romagosa wrote:
> > I could work on this one, it looks easy enough:
> > https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber/issues/85
> >
> > Is there a list of wanted tags? Do we wanna include HTML5 tags like
> > audio, video, progress, etc?
>
> Synch with Nicolas because he has just implemented a canvas for js for
> the customer where I work right now:
>
> https://github.com/NicolasPetton/htmlCanvas
>
> ...I think he wants to reuse "lessons learned" from there.

There's nothing really new in the JS implementation of the canvas,
except for JS specific changes.

Nico

>
> regards, Göran

Nicolas Petton

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

In reply to this post by gokr

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 10:51 +0100, Göran Krampe wrote:

> On 11/02/2011 10:39 AM, Stefan Krecher wrote:
> > Hi,
> > i just added an issue - how are labels ("bug", "feature") added? I was
> > not able to assign a milestone.
>
> Fixed. The issue on github I mean, not the bug itself :)
>
> > Another question: i'm still working on the package-server (with
> > serverside amber) - where should i put the code?
> > Should i use my git amber-clone with a special branch? Or would it be
> > better to use an own project on git?
>
> Not sure, Nicolas?

Well, it's as you wish. Amber still misses support for developing
projects on top of Amber, so there is no ideal solution yet.

Cheers,
Nico

laurent laffont

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

In reply to this post by gokr

2011/11/2 Göran Krampe <[hidden email]>

Hi all!

Ok, so we need to get a new release out :) - we all know that.

Currently we have 5 issues listed for 0.9.1:

https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber/issues?milestone=2&state=open

I think Nicolas should/will go through the current list of issues and possibly add a few to 0.9.1 :) - but feel free to already mention your thoughts on what we need to include in 0.9.1 from the full list of issues.

Persopnally: The two amberc bugs are related and IMHO would be nice to fix, so I will focus on that for 0.9.1 and then I will try to get more Package funkiness into 0.9.2 instead.

We have wanted to do 0.9.1 for quite some time - and more or less intended to just make a "dump" on what we have, so please be "conservative" and only propose fixing issues you *really* feel needs to be fixed for a new release. ;)

Same goes for pull requests of course. I haven't looked at the one that is lined up from Laurent - it looks pretty hefty, it must be several things, right?

Yes there's several things: jquery upgrade, Presentation navigator, commit path per package . I don't know how to separate pull requests per feature on git / github.

That said, the 2 most important things for me are:

- how to handle commit paths. I've written a solution (in the pull request) but there's no concensus on that. The use case I face is described here: https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber/pull/79#commitcomment-663718

- some architecture changes to have less conflicts. I've still not merged my branch with master, lot of conflicts. Hard to deal with Kernel.st ... I'm thinking about: do not include packagesxxxx.js / .deploy.js on github anymore (only in tarball from amber website). Split Kernel in several packages.

Laurent Laffont

regards, Göran

Nicolas Petton

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:20 +0100, laurent laffont wrote:
> I don't know how to separate pull requests per feature on git /
> github.

One branch per feature is a good way to do it.

Cheers,
Nico

Nicolas Petton

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

In reply to this post by laurent laffont

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:20 +0100, laurent laffont wrote:
> some architecture changes to have less conflicts. I've still not
> merged my branch with master, lot of conflicts. Hard to deal with
> Kernel.st ... I'm thinking about: do not include
> packagesxxxx.js / .deploy.js on github anymore (only in tarball from
> amber website). Split Kernel in several packages.
>

I agree about splitting Kernel, but not about not including .js files,
because they are needed (amber cannot be compiled from source code only)
so we may end up with serious issues later :)

Typically, when you have a conflict in a .js file, just recompile it
with amberc and commit it.

Cheers,
Nico

Bernat Romagosa

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

So, here's the list of tags currently acknowledged by the w3c, and I've marked the ones amber already supports:

<!-->

<!DOCTYPE>

<a>

<abbr>

<area>

<aside>

<audio>

<b>

<base>

<bdi>

<bdo>

<big>

<body>

<br>

<button>

<canvas>

<cite>

<code>

<col>

<dd>

<del>

<dfn>

<dir>

<div>

<dl>

<dt>

<em>

<embed>

<font>

<form>

<frame>

<h1> - <h6>

<head>

<hr>

<html>

<i>

<iframe>

<img>

<input>

<ins>

<kbd>

<label>

<li>

<link>

<map>

<mark>

<menu>

<meta>

<meter>

<nav>

<ol>

<option>

<p>

<param>

<pre>

<q>

<rp>

<rt>

<ruby>

<s>

<samp>

<script>

<select>

<small>

<span>

<style>

<sub>

<sup>

<table>

<tbody>

<td>

<textarea>

<tfoot>

<th>

<thead>

<time>

<title>

<tr>

<track>

<tt>

<u>

<ul>

<var>

<video>

<wbr>

<xmp>

Of course, we don't need all this stuff, but there are many we do have to include, anyone care to trim the list? :)

Cheers,

2011/11/2 Nicolas Petton <[hidden email]>

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:20 +0100, laurent laffont wrote:

> some architecture changes to have less conflicts. I've still not
> merged my branch with master, lot of conflicts. Hard to deal with
> Kernel.st ... I'm thinking about: do not include
> packagesxxxx.js / .deploy.js on github anymore (only in tarball from
> amber website). Split Kernel in several packages.
>

I agree about splitting Kernel, but not about not including .js files,
because they are needed (amber cannot be compiled from source code only)
so we may end up with serious issues later :)

Typically, when you have a conflict in a .js file, just recompile it
with amberc and commit it.

Cheers,
Nico

--
Bernat Romagosa.

Hannes Hirzel

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

Thank you Bernat for providing the list.

I would remove the tags which are not recommended anymore in HTML5,
e.g. <applet>, <dir>, <font>

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#obsolete

Or alternatively just not implement them at the moment.

I'd like to see all the HTML 5 semantic markup tags like <article>,
<header>, <footer> as well as the media tags <audio>, <video>.

--Hannes

On 11/2/11, Bernat Romagosa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So, here's the list of tags currently acknowledged by the w3c, and I've
> marked the ones amber already supports:
>
> <!-->
> <!DOCTYPE>
> *<a>*
> <abbr>
> <acronym>
> <address>
> <applet>
> <area>
> <article>
> <aside>
> <audio>
> <b>
> <base>
> <basefont>
> <bdi>
> <bdo>
> <big>
> <blockquote>
> <body>
> *<br>*
> *<button>*
> *<canvas>*
> <caption>
> <center>
> <cite>
> *<code>*
> <col>
> <colgroup>
> <command>
> <datalist>
> <dd>
> <del>
> <details>
> <dfn>
> <dir>
> *<div>*
> <dl>
> <dt>
> <em>
> <embed>
> <fieldset>
> <figcaption>
> <figure>
> <font>
> <footer>
> *<form>*
> <frame>
> <frameset>
> *<h1> - <h6>*
> <head>
> <header>
> <hgroup>
> <hr>
> <html>
> <i>
> *<iframe>*
> *<img>*
> *<input>*
> <ins>
> <keygen>
> <kbd>
> <label>
> <legend>
> *<li>*
> *<link>*
> <map>
> <mark>
> <menu>
> <meta>
> <meter>
> <nav>
> <noframes>
> <noscript>
> <object>
> *<ol>*
> <optgroup>
> *<option>*
> <output>
> *<p>*
> <param>
> *<pre>*
> <progress>
> <q>
> <rp>
> <rt>
> <ruby>
> <s>
> <samp>
> *<script>*
> <section>
> *<select>*
> <small>
> <source>
> *<span>*
> <strike>
> <strong>
> *<style>*
> <sub>
> <summary>
> <sup>
> *<table>*
> <tbody>
> *<td>*
> *<textarea>*
> <tfoot>
> *<th>*
> <thead>
> <time>
> <title>
> *<tr>*
> <track>
> <tt>
> <u>
> *<ul>*
> <var>
> <video>
> <wbr>
> <xmp>
>
> Of course, we don't need all this stuff, but there are many we do have to
> include, anyone care to trim the list? :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> 2011/11/2 Nicolas Petton <[hidden email]>
>
>> On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:20 +0100, laurent laffont wrote:
>> > some architecture changes to have less conflicts. I've still not
>> > merged my branch with master, lot of conflicts. Hard to deal with
>> > Kernel.st ... I'm thinking about: do not include
>> > packagesxxxx.js / .deploy.js on github anymore (only in tarball from
>> > amber website). Split Kernel in several packages.
>> >
>>
>> I agree about splitting Kernel, but not about not including .js files,
>> because they are needed (amber cannot be compiled from source code only)
>> so we may end up with serious issues later :)
>>
>> Typically, when you have a conflict in a .js file, just recompile it
>> with amberc and commit it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nico
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Bernat Romagosa.
>

laurent laffont

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

In reply to this post by Nicolas Petton

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Nicolas Petton <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:20 +0100, laurent laffont wrote:
> I don't know how to separate pull requests per feature on git /
> github.

One branch per feature is a good way to do it.

OK. I will separate pull requests.

Laurent.

Cheers,
Nico

laurent laffont

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

In reply to this post by Nicolas Petton

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Nicolas Petton <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:20 +0100, laurent laffont wrote:

> some architecture changes to have less conflicts. I've still not
> merged my branch with master, lot of conflicts. Hard to deal with
> Kernel.st ... I'm thinking about: do not include
> packagesxxxx.js / .deploy.js on github anymore (only in tarball from
> amber website). Split Kernel in several packages.
>

I agree about splitting Kernel,

OK, it will help.

but not about not including .js files,
because they are needed (amber cannot be compiled from source code only)
so we may end up with serious issues later :)

Actually, which packages are needed to compile ?

Laurent

Typically, when you have a conflict in a .js file, just recompile it
with amberc and commit it.

Cheers,
Nico

Bernat Romagosa

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

I marked the obsolete ones, the ones we already implement and the ones I believe we should add, please review!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApP6e9iFhno9dEhMcGwzUE51aXdwZEt3cHJ6RzJCa1E

2011/11/2 laurent laffont <[hidden email]>

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Nicolas Petton <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:20 +0100, laurent laffont wrote:

> some architecture changes to have less conflicts. I've still not
> merged my branch with master, lot of conflicts. Hard to deal with
> Kernel.st ... I'm thinking about: do not include
> packagesxxxx.js / .deploy.js on github anymore (only in tarball from
> amber website). Split Kernel in several packages.
>

I agree about splitting Kernel,

OK, it will help.

but not about not including .js files,
because they are needed (amber cannot be compiled from source code only)
so we may end up with serious issues later :)

Actually, which packages are needed to compile ?

Laurent

Typically, when you have a conflict in a .js file, just recompile it
with amberc and commit it.

Cheers,
Nico

--
Bernat Romagosa.

Bernat Romagosa

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

So, according to what people marked in the spreadsheet, I've added all these tags and pushed them to my clone. Should I file a pull request?

Here's the list of the tags I've just added:

<audio>

<hr>

<tbody>

<tfoot>

<thead>

<video>

Cheers,

2011/11/2 Bernat Romagosa <[hidden email]>

I marked the obsolete ones, the ones we already implement and the ones I believe we should add, please review!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApP6e9iFhno9dEhMcGwzUE51aXdwZEt3cHJ6RzJCa1E

2011/11/2 laurent laffont <[hidden email]>

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Nicolas Petton <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:20 +0100, laurent laffont wrote:

> some architecture changes to have less conflicts. I've still not
> merged my branch with master, lot of conflicts. Hard to deal with
> Kernel.st ... I'm thinking about: do not include
> packagesxxxx.js / .deploy.js on github anymore (only in tarball from
> amber website). Split Kernel in several packages.
>

I agree about splitting Kernel,

OK, it will help.

but not about not including .js files,
because they are needed (amber cannot be compiled from source code only)
so we may end up with serious issues later :)

Actually, which packages are needed to compile ?

Laurent

Typically, when you have a conflict in a .js file, just recompile it
with amberc and commit it.

Cheers,
Nico

--
Bernat Romagosa.

--
Bernat Romagosa.

Nicolas Petton

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

Sure, send a pull request :)

Nico

On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 13:06 +0100, Bernat Romagosa wrote:

> So, according to what people marked in the spreadsheet, I've added all
> these tags and pushed them to my clone. Should I file a pull request?
>
> Here's the list of the tags I've just added:
>
>
> <article>
> <audio>
> <fieldset>
> <footer>
> <header>
> <hr>
> <iframe>
> <section>
> <tbody>
> <tfoot>
> <thead>
> <video>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> 2011/11/2 Bernat Romagosa <[hidden email]>
> I marked the obsolete ones, the ones we already implement and
> the ones I believe we should add, please review!
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApP6e9iFhno9dEhMcGwzUE51aXdwZEt3cHJ6RzJCa1E
>
>
> 2011/11/2 laurent laffont <[hidden email]>
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Nicolas Petton
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 11:20 +0100, laurent
> laffont wrote:
>
> > some architecture changes to have less
> conflicts. I've still not
> > merged my branch with master, lot of
> conflicts. Hard to deal with
> > Kernel.st ... I'm thinking about: do not
> include
> > packagesxxxx.js / .deploy.js on github
> anymore (only in tarball from
> > amber website). Split Kernel in several
> packages.
> >
>
>
> I agree about splitting Kernel,
>
>
> OK, it will help.
>
> but not about not including .js files,
> because they are needed (amber cannot be
> compiled from source code only)
> so we may end up with serious issues later :)
>
>
>
>
> Actually, which packages are needed to compile ?
>
>
> Laurent
>
>
> Typically, when you have a conflict in a .js
> file, just recompile it
> with amberc and commit it.
>
> Cheers,
> Nico
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernat Romagosa.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernat Romagosa.
>

Stefan Krecher

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

In reply to this post by gokr

btw: what's the timeline for 0.9.1 (and the other milestones)?

Nicolas Petton

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

The idea is to release often. Now it's more "we'll be ready when we'll
be ready".

You can expect a release in the next few days though :)

Cheers,
Nico

On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 06:34 -0800, Stefan Krecher wrote:
> btw: what's the timeline for 0.9.1 (and the other milestones)?

Stefan Krecher-2

Re: Work for 0.9.1 - asking for your input...

hmm ... i'd like to clean-up (and maybe improve) the twitterwall-example for 0.9.1 - how much time do i have? or will you move that issue to the next milestone?

2011/11/7 Nicolas Petton <[hidden email]>

The idea is to release often. Now it's more "we'll be ready when we'll
be ready".

You can expect a release in the next few days though :)

Cheers,
Nico

On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 06:34 -0800, Stefan Krecher wrote:
> btw: what's the timeline for 0.9.1 (and the other milestones)?

--
Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Inf. Stefan Krecher
Neulander Str. 17, 27374 Visselhövede
Tel +49(0)4262 958848
mobil +49(0)172 3608616
http://krecher.com