when do we go beta?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

when do we go beta?

Stéphane Ducasse
Stef

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Gary Chambers-4
Who knows... despite the (1.4 to 2.0 transition) we've had to stay on 1.4
for stability/sanity since we have a live product.
Will take a while to ascertain the impact. Guess we go once final for us.

Sorry not had the time to follow the 2.0 progression in use.

Regards, Gary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stéphane Ducasse" <[hidden email]>
To: "Pharo Development" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:19 PM
Subject: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?


> Stef
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Sven Van Caekenberghe-2
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:19, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

> when do we go beta?

I have been using 2.0 for months now, it has been very stable (apart from some hiccups).

It is so much better that it would be immoral to keep this from the world ;-)

We just have to declare a stabilization period in which we refrain from big/dangerous changes and work more on stability and testing.

My 2c,

Sven



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

EstebanLM
I was thinking on going beta next week, actually :)

On Nov 21, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:19, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> when do we go beta?
>
> I have been using 2.0 for months now, it has been very stable (apart from some hiccups).
>
> It is so much better that it would be immoral to keep this from the world ;-)
>
> We just have to declare a stabilization period in which we refrain from big/dangerous changes and work more on stability and testing.
>
> My 2c,
>
> Sven
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Stéphane Ducasse
In reply to this post by Gary Chambers-4

On Nov 21, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Gary Chambers wrote:

> Who knows... despite the (1.4 to 2.0 transition) we've had to stay on 1.4 for stability/sanity since we have a live product.

We can understand.
Now we hope that the new aspect will really interest you ;)
We re thinking about tools to help companies migrating. We are designing a new change model recording refactoring
so that we can also propose changes summary.
We improved a lot but the road is long.

Stef

> Will take a while to ascertain the impact. Guess we go once final for us.
>
> Sorry not had the time to follow the 2.0 progression in use.
>
> Regards, Gary
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stéphane Ducasse" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Pharo Development" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:19 PM
> Subject: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
>
>
>> Stef
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Stéphane Ducasse
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
Please!
Because I refrain myself to fix and changes so we should focus on bug fixing and not opening new things.

> I was thinking on going beta next week, actually :)
>
>
>>> when do we go beta?
>>
>> I have been using 2.0 for months now, it has been very stable (apart from some hiccups).
>>
>> It is so much better that it would be immoral to keep this from the world ;-)
>>
>> We just have to declare a stabilization period in which we refrain from big/dangerous changes and work more on stability and testing.

Thanks sven.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Mariano Martinez Peck
+1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. 
So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess. 

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please!
Because I refrain myself to fix and changes so we should focus on bug fixing and not opening new things.

> I was thinking on going beta next week, actually :)
>
>
>>> when do we go beta?
>>
>> I have been using 2.0 for months now, it has been very stable (apart from some hiccups).
>>
>> It is so much better that it would be immoral to keep this from the world ;-)
>>
>> We just have to declare a stabilization period in which we refrain from big/dangerous changes and work more on stability and testing.

Thanks sven.





--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Stéphane Ducasse

On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:

> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff.
> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess.

No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens.
These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen.

Stef
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Camillo Bruni-3

On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff.
>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess.
>
> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens.
> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen.

I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good
- integrate the detached project
- apply the refactorings during development

then in the next release
- change tools to use the new infrastructure
- remove old code

I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Mariano Martinez Peck


On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff.
>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess.
>
> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens.
> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen.

I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good
- integrate the detached project
- apply the refactorings during development

then in the next release
- change tools to use the new infrastructure
- remove old code

I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?


What about NOT including new class builder nor Opal in 2.0 but as soon as we create the initial repo for 2.1 (or whatever), the first 2 things we do is to integrate them?


--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

EstebanLM
In reply to this post by Camillo Bruni-3
my proposal so far is:

- prepare the vms as "NB ready" (I was planning to work on that next week, using the new infraestructure)
- include NB as "ready to use"
- include Opal as "preview"

No more integrations for 2.0.
We will be able to load Athens (since VMs and image will be prepared) with just a simple Metacello configuration. I don't know if including it as "preview" (like opal) Igor, what do you think?

I need all next week to prepare that (with Marcus assistance, of course :P)...

Are we ok with that?

Esteban

ps: If we don't go to beta next week will be really difficult to release in February (as is stipulated now)


On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff.
>>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess.
>>
>> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens.
>> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen.
>
> I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good
> - integrate the detached project
> - apply the refactorings during development
>
> then in the next release
> - change tools to use the new infrastructure
> - remove old code
>
> I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

EstebanLM
In reply to this post by Mariano Martinez Peck
new class builder is NOT marked for inclusion, I'm sorry (even as a preview)

On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:56 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff.
>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess.
>
> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens.
> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen.

I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good
- integrate the detached project
- apply the refactorings during development

then in the next release
- change tools to use the new infrastructure
- remove old code

I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?


What about NOT including new class builder nor Opal in 2.0 but as soon as we create the initial repo for 2.1 (or whatever), the first 2 things we do is to integrate them?


--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

sebastianconcept@gmail.co
sounds like we are in a less is more stage

we always have time for new nice surprises

let the incomplete stuff for later

keep the great work


On Nov 21, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:

new class builder is NOT marked for inclusion, I'm sorry (even as a preview)

On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:56 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff.
>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess.
>
> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens.
> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen.

I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good
- integrate the detached project
- apply the refactorings during development

then in the next release
- change tools to use the new infrastructure
- remove old code

I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?


What about NOT including new class builder nor Opal in 2.0 but as soon as we create the initial repo for 2.1 (or whatever), the first 2 things we do is to integrate them?


--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Stéphane Ducasse
In reply to this post by Camillo Bruni-3
Yes!
Else nobody will ever look and join Opal improvement.

>>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff.
>>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess.
>>
>> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens.
>> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen.
>
> I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good
> - integrate the detached project
> - apply the refactorings during development
>
> then in the next release
> - change tools to use the new infrastructure
> - remove old code
>
> I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Stéphane Ducasse
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
+1

> new class builder is NOT marked for inclusion, I'm sorry (even as a preview)

It will be for 3.0.

Stef


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Stéphane Ducasse
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
sounds good to me.
Esteban we should do a list of points to fix.
        - Nautilus with trees :)
        - default shortcuts
        - fix criticbrowser (I'm working on it).
        -
        -

Stef

> my proposal so far is:
>
> - prepare the vms as "NB ready" (I was planning to work on that next week, using the new infraestructure)
> - include NB as "ready to use"
> - include Opal as "preview"
>
> No more integrations for 2.0.
> We will be able to load Athens (since VMs and image will be prepared) with just a simple Metacello configuration. I don't know if including it as "preview" (like opal) Igor, what do you think?
>
> I need all next week to prepare that (with Marcus assistance, of course :P)...
>
> Are we ok with that?
>
> Esteban
>
> ps: If we don't go to beta next week will be really difficult to release in February (as is stipulated now)
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff.
>>>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess.
>>>
>>> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens.
>>> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen.
>>
>> I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good
>> - integrate the detached project
>> - apply the refactorings during development
>>
>> then in the next release
>> - change tools to use the new infrastructure
>> - remove old code
>>
>> I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Goubier Thierry
I've used Pharo 2.0 for teaching on Monday/Tuesday. Apart from a few
bugs here and there, it worked fine (but the bugs were rather annoying
to explain to Smalltalk beginners).

At the same time, my production development is on 1.4.

So I think it could/should go beta soon. I'd be happy if I know some of
the core packages won't change under me :)

Thierry

Le 22/11/2012 08:17, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :

> sounds good to me.
> Esteban we should do a list of points to fix.
> - Nautilus with trees :)
> - default shortcuts
> - fix criticbrowser (I'm working on it).
> -
> -
>
> Stef
>
>> my proposal so far is:
>>
>> - prepare the vms as "NB ready" (I was planning to work on that next week, using the new infraestructure)
>> - include NB as "ready to use"
>> - include Opal as "preview"
>>
>> No more integrations for 2.0.
>> We will be able to load Athens (since VMs and image will be prepared) with just a simple Metacello configuration. I don't know if including it as "preview" (like opal) Igor, what do you think?
>>
>> I need all next week to prepare that (with Marcus assistance, of course :P)...
>>
>> Are we ok with that?
>>
>> Esteban
>>
>> ps: If we don't go to beta next week will be really difficult to release in February (as is stipulated now)
>>
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff.
>>>>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess.
>>>>
>>>> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens.
>>>> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen.
>>>
>>> I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good
>>> - integrate the detached project
>>> - apply the refactorings during development
>>>
>>> then in the next release
>>> - change tools to use the new infrastructure
>>> - remove old code
>>>
>>> I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?
>>
>>
>
>
>


--
Thierry Goubier
CEA list
Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués
91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex
France
Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Stéphane Ducasse

On Nov 22, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Goubier Thierry wrote:

> I've used Pharo 2.0 for teaching on Monday/Tuesday. Apart from a few bugs here and there, it worked fine (but the bugs were rather annoying to explain to Smalltalk beginners).

2.0 was shaky. I would have used 1.4 for newbies

> At the same time, my production development is on 1.4.
>
> So I think it could/should go beta soon. I'd be happy if I know some of the core packages won't change under me :)

We will. I want to really stabilize now.

Stef

>
> Thierry
>
> Le 22/11/2012 08:17, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
>> sounds good to me.
>> Esteban we should do a list of points to fix.
>> - Nautilus with trees :)
>> - default shortcuts
>> - fix criticbrowser (I'm working on it).
>> -
>> -
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>> my proposal so far is:
>>>
>>> - prepare the vms as "NB ready" (I was planning to work on that next week, using the new infraestructure)
>>> - include NB as "ready to use"
>>> - include Opal as "preview"
>>>
>>> No more integrations for 2.0.
>>> We will be able to load Athens (since VMs and image will be prepared) with just a simple Metacello configuration. I don't know if including it as "preview" (like opal) Igor, what do you think?
>>>
>>> I need all next week to prepare that (with Marcus assistance, of course :P)...
>>>
>>> Are we ok with that?
>>>
>>> Esteban
>>>
>>> ps: If we don't go to beta next week will be really difficult to release in February (as is stipulated now)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff.
>>>>>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens.
>>>>> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen.
>>>>
>>>> I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good
>>>> - integrate the detached project
>>>> - apply the refactorings during development
>>>>
>>>> then in the next release
>>>> - change tools to use the new infrastructure
>>>> - remove old code
>>>>
>>>> I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thierry Goubier
> CEA list
> Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués
> 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex
> France
> Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Goubier Thierry
Le 22/11/2012 10:46, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Goubier Thierry wrote:
>
>> I've used Pharo 2.0 for teaching on Monday/Tuesday. Apart from a few bugs here and there, it worked fine (but the bugs were rather annoying to explain to Smalltalk beginners).
>
> 2.0 was shaky. I would have used 1.4 for newbies

It worked well enough to teach process network programming with it...

>> At the same time, my production development is on 1.4.
>>
>> So I think it could/should go beta soon. I'd be happy if I know some of the core packages won't change under me :)
>
> We will. I want to really stabilize now.

+1

Thierry
--
Thierry Goubier
CEA list
Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués
91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex
France
Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: when do we go beta?

Stéphane Ducasse
do you have slides of your lectures?

Stef

>>> I've used Pharo 2.0 for teaching on Monday/Tuesday. Apart from a few bugs here and there, it worked fine (but the bugs were rather annoying to explain to Smalltalk beginners).
>>
>> 2.0 was shaky. I would have used 1.4 for newbies
>
> It worked well enough to teach process network programming with it...
>
>>> At the same time, my production development is on 1.4.
>>>
>>> So I think it could/should go beta soon. I'd be happy if I know some of the core packages won't change under me :)
>>
>> We will. I want to really stabilize now.
>
> +1
>
> Thierry
> --
> Thierry Goubier
> CEA list
> Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués
> 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex
> France
> Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
>


12