[squeak-dev] Updating Universe

Just wondering if it is a good or bad idea to remove older versions of
packages from the (dev) universe?
Particularly for UI Enhancements since it has been renamed to Polymorph.

Don't want to cause anyone trouble but the (essentially obsolete) older
versions seem like they may be confusing, given that only one of the two
sets (Polymorph *or* UI Enhancements) should be loaded at any time.

Regards, Gary.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Gary Chambers
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Just wondering if it is a good or bad idea to remove older versions of
> packages from the (dev) universe?
> Particularly for UI Enhancements since it has been renamed to Polymorph.
>
> Don't want to cause anyone trouble but the (essentially obsolete) older
> versions seem like they may be confusing, given that only one of the two
> sets (Polymorph *or* UI Enhancements) should be loaded at any time.

The rule is to never remove a package from the Universe so that people
can update their image without problem. But if I were you, I would
delete it :-).

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Aye, just what I expected ;-) Bye-bye all UI Enhancement dev universe
versions...
I guess if anyone has a problem they'll post here and can be given advice
(migrate to Polymorph).

Regards, Gary.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Damien Cassou" <[hidden email]>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Updating Universe

Damien Cassou wrote:
Hm. I'm having the same problem. There are simply too many (broken)
pieces of Balloon3D floating around in the various universes. The "never
delete" rule certainly feels silly for something that is under
development - we can't realistically expect people to never make
mistakes or change their mind.

Technically speaking, how does one delete anything from a universe?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Gary Chambers
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I guess if anyone has a problem they'll post here and can be given advice
> (migrate to Polymorph).

Or stop using old images when new ones are generated every month :-)

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Technically speaking, how does one delete anything from a universe?

open the universe editor, select a package and click 'remove package version'.

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

2009/1/14, Gary Chambers <[hidden email]>:
> Just wondering if it is a good or bad idea to remove older versions of
> packages from the (dev) universe?
> Particularly for UI Enhancements since it has been renamed to Polymorph.
>
> Don't want to cause anyone trouble but the (essentially obsolete) older
> versions seem like they may be confusing, given that only one of the two
> sets (Polymorph *or* UI Enhancements) should be loaded at any time.

+1

I can't imagine a reason why you'd want to load an older version. If
the latest in the universe is broken it doesn't belong into the
universe. Also I'm not sure that not removing old versions is
compatible with the mission statement of universes. Since all packages
in a universe are supposed to work together that would then have to be
extended to all possible combinations of versions of packages.

Cheers
Philippe

Deleting now... update failure to be reported here!

Regards, Gary.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Marschall" <[hidden email]>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Updating Universe

Done.

Only Polymorph now. Is a like-for-like replacement but progressed.

Regards, Gary.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Chambers" <[hidden email]>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Updating Universe

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Damien Cassou <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The rule is to never remove a package from the Universe so that people
> can update their image without problem. But if I were you, I would
> delete it :-).

There are two problems with this rule.  The obvious one is that the
universe gets lots of obsolete versions of packages, and that makes
browsing them hard in the Universe browser.  This problem can be fixed
by a better browser.

The bigger problem is that it encourages people to live in their image
and to depend on updates to fix problems.  After many years of
Smalltalk programming, I decided to throw away my current image every
week and to build a new one.  I make sure I can file out all my code
and can build a new image from a released image.  I know that this
cannot be done with the base image. But I think Squeak would be better
if it were possible to build a new image from scratch.  Unfortunately,
that won't happen soon, but I can at least keep any applications I
work on from falling into the same problem.

I would not go so far as to claim that Package Universe should delete
the ability to perform updates.  But I would say that all old versions
can be thrown away, and that people should not expect to be able to
update a year old image without breaking something.  After all,
instead of updating a package, they can just load in a new version.

-Ralph

 
>
> The bigger problem is that it encourages people to live in their image
> and to depend on updates to fix problems.  After many years of
> Smalltalk programming, I decided to throw away my current image every
> week and to build a new one.  I make sure I can file out all my code
> and can build a new image from a released image.  
 Finally, would you tell Edgar that using scripts to build images is a
good idea after all!

Keith

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Ralph Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There are two problems with this rule.  The obvious one is that the
> universe gets lots of obsolete versions of packages, and that makes
> browsing them hard in the Universe browser.  This problem can be fixed
> by a better browser.

There is already a browser which displays the package versions nicely
(using 3 panes as with a code browser).

> The bigger problem is that it encourages people to live in their image
> and to depend on updates to fix problems.  After many years of
> Smalltalk programming, I decided to throw away my current image every
> week and to build a new one.  I make sure I can file out all my code
> and can build a new image from a released image.  I know that this
> cannot be done with the base image. But I think Squeak would be better
> if it were possible to build a new image from scratch.  Unfortunately,
> that won't happen soon, but I can at least keep any applications I
> work on from falling into the same problem.

I'm not sure I understand. What is the problem with the squeak-dev
images? I build them exactly for this purpose. When I work on a
project, I commit to SqueakSource and change the base image at least
every week (often every day). IIRC, at netstyle they change their
image everyday and new images are built automatically each night.


> I would not go so far as to claim that Package Universe should delete
> the ability to perform updates.  But I would say that all old versions
> can be thrown away, and that people should not expect to be able to
> update a year old image without breaking something.  After all,
> instead of updating a package, they can just load in a new version.
>
> -Ralph
>
>



--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Hi -

Maybe someone can help me with this. I was trying to put up a reconciled
version of Balloon3D into the 3.10 universe and I can't get it to work.
Originally there were a bunch of Balloon3D packages registered in
universes. Trying to remove them failed as I am not the listed author,
so I thought I'll ignore that for the moment and just publish a new
version that people can use for testing. No luck - apparently only the
owner can post new versions of the package. Okay, so I asked the listed
owner if he could remove the packages for me so that I could simply
publish the package from scratch. Which he did, but even so, I cannot
publish a package by the name "Balloon3" - all I get is an error saying
"Error: adding package Balloon3D failed (package is owned by another)".

Any ideas? I'm kinda stuck here.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Damien Cassou wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Technically speaking, how does one delete anything from a universe?
>
> open the universe editor, select a package and click 'remove package version'.
>

Hi Andreas,

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
Only Lex Spoon can control who owns what. I forward him this email.

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Damien Cassou wrote:
> Only Lex Spoon can control who owns what. I forward him this email.

Thanks. I decided that rather than wait for the issue to be resolved
I'll just change the name to something sufficiently similar and went
with Balloon-3D. And lo and behold! That worked ... or so I thought. The
image that I used to publish the package showed it nicely in the PU
browser but when I went to a different image the package wasn't listed.
As a matter of fact, when I went back to the image I published it from
and did an "update list from the net" it didn't show either.

Help! What I am doing wrong? Are there some noob/dummy instructions for
people like myself who really have zero intention to read the code for
finding out how to use the tools?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

2009/1/20 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
AFAIK you simply have to wait until it appears.

Cheers
Philippe

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Philippe Marschall
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> AFAIK you simply have to wait until it appears.

Yes, between 10 and 15 minutes.

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Andreas Raab wrote: When Sake/Packages generates its definitions from Universes it ignores $- !

Keith

In Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Help! What I am doing wrong? Are there some noob/dummy instructions for people like myself who really have zero intention to read the code for finding out how to use the tools?

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5899

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st