Smalltalk › Frameworks & Tools › SciSmalltalk

configuration

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

6 messages Options

werner kassens-2

configuration

Hi Serge,
you changed stable for squeak from v12 to v13. i would suggest to reset stable for squeak to v12. the reason, i set this to v12, was that the changes from v12 to v13 were mainly changes in tests to make them compatible with pharo4, and these pharo changes are incompatible with squeak, iow tests in v13 will fail in squeak, although there is essentially nothing new in v13. the new things in v14 _certainly dont work without adaptation in squeak. and if i remember correctly the tests in v12 are green in squeak, although not everything in v12 does really work there, well not everything is covered by tests. but i'd say its halfway stable.

another point: stable for pharo2.0 was taken off jenkins, which makes a lot of sense to me, it is unnecessary if there is no chance that it changes. and you made a new v14 but kept stable at v13. perhaps because a general change would be unworkable in 2.0? obviously the method #stable: would look a bit more complicated if it would be changed eg to:
stable: spec
    <symbolicVersion: #'stable'>
    spec for: #'squeak' version: '0.12'.
    spec for: #'pharo2.0' version: '0.13'.
    spec for: #'pharo3.0' version: '0.14'.
    spec for: #'pharo4.0' version: '0.14'.
but from my pov it looks still manageable (of course the config should look simple enough that everybody can make changes to them). what do you think?

werner

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SciSmalltalk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

SergeStinckwich

Re: configuration

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:38 AM, werner kassens <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Serge,

Hi Werner,

> you changed stable for squeak from v12 to v13. i would suggest to reset
> stable for squeak to v12. the reason, i set this to v12, was that the
> changes from v12 to v13 were mainly changes in tests to make them compatible
> with pharo4, and these pharo changes are incompatible with squeak, iow tests
> in v13 will fail in squeak, although there is essentially nothing new in
> v13. the new things in v14 _certainly dont work without adaptation in
> squeak. and if i remember correctly the tests in v12 are green in squeak,
> although not everything in v12 does really work there, well not everything
> is covered by tests. but i'd say its halfway stable.

Ok, I stepdown Squeak to v12. I move stable Pharo version to v14
(forget yesterday).

Are you a Squeak user, because we really need Squeak user if we want
to test SciSmalltalk.
We also need a CI for Squeak also. Sorry, I'm not a Squeak user, I
could not help here.

> another point: stable for pharo2.0 was taken off jenkins, which makes a lot
> of sense to me, it is unnecessary if there is no chance that it changes. and
> you made a new v14 but kept stable at v13. perhaps because a general change
> would be unworkable in 2.0? obviously the method #stable: would look a bit
> more complicated if it would be changed eg to:
> stable: spec
> <symbolicVersion: #'stable'>
> spec for: #'squeak' version: '0.12'.
> spec for: #'pharo2.0' version: '0.13'.
> spec for: #'pharo3.0' version: '0.14'.
> spec for: #'pharo4.0' version: '0.14'.
> but from my pov it looks still manageable (of course the config should look
> simple enough that everybody can make changes to them). what do you think?

Ok, I understand the point.

I update the ConfigurationOfSciSmalltalk and push it on MetaRepoForPharo30.

Thank you Werner.
Regards,
--
Serge Stinckwich
UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC)
Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk
http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SciSmalltalk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

werner kassens-2

Re: configuration

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:25:20 AM UTC+2, Serge Stinckwich wrote:

Are you a Squeak user, because we really need Squeak user if we want
to test SciSmalltalk.

Hi Serge,
no, i just downloaded once a squeak-4.5, to see where the problems are.
werner

SergeStinckwich

Re: configuration

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM, werner kassens <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:25:20 AM UTC+2, Serge Stinckwich wrote:
>>
>> Are you a Squeak user, because we really need Squeak user if we want
>> to test SciSmalltalk.
>
>
> Hi Serge,
> no, i just downloaded once a squeak-4.5, to see where the problems are.

If we have no Squeak user in the mailing-list, I'm not sure we should
spend to much time on this platform right now.

--
Serge Stinckwich
UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC)
Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk
http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SciSmalltalk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

werner kassens-2

Re: configuration

i agree. there was an error in my proposal for the stable: method. i tried to correct that. lets see whether jenkins accepts that now.
werner

werner kassens-2

Re: configuration

Hi,
fwiw version14 and stable now work again. hence if somebody wants to try it out, just download stable at jenkins.
werner

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:32:19 PM UTC+2, werner kassens wrote:

i agree. there was an error in my proposal for the stable: method. i tried to correct that. lets see whether jenkins accepts that now.
werner