[Pharo-dev] Keyboard events is broken.

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Wed Aug 7 11:22:07 EDT 2013


Agree with everything you said.
As i said, my impression was that Guille pushed unfinished/incomplete pieces.
And that is what i against.
Because if we go that way, then someone will start pushing changes
which even don't compile.

I hope i made my point clear, what  blessed means. It is not synonym
to 'stable'.


On 7 August 2013 17:11, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO is no point on ask for keeping an "all-time-stable" VM in the development process (it is even a contradiction).
> Is the same as asking for a 3.0 stable before release (yes, is the same... we are trying to have same process for both).
>
> VM development is not stable right now, same way it is not stable 3.0
> Want stable stuff? you need to take the stable VM and Pharo 2.0 (even with the bugs we all know).
> Ok, we (the pharo developers community) cannot do that, we need to work on the bleeding edge and because of that, some times we get uncomfortable situations.
> But then we all know how hard is to have a functionality working properly and well tested. Our only way to do that is to put it in the development trunk and ask for feedback.
>
> So... yes, I'm sorry it annoys some time to time, but latest-VM will have periods in which it doesn't work as expected... is the only way this small community can advance: Developers  introduce a functionality, community tests and provide feedback, then loop.
>
> Now, what we should have is a better way of mark stuff.. so we can backport stuff et all.
> For that, what we should have is:
> - all sources in just one repository, including vmmaker (I'm working on that)
> - create a tag (that we can branch and backport stuff) each release.
>
> no need to stress about :)
>
> my 2c
>
> Esteban
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7 August 2013 15:55, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My understanding how it should be:
>>>> - you work in own branch  (and in git, repository clone is already a
>>>> branch, just on your computer).
>>>> If you want to make it public you need to make own branch on gitorious
>>>> and commit there.
>>>> - once you finished with changes and tested it , you are free to merge
>>>> with blessed
>>>> (no need to have GODs permission to do that, or make pull requests)
>>>
>>>
>>> We did all that. We tested it with Ben because he needed the change to send
>>> ctrl events from the vm to the image, which were not sent. We tested in our
>>> computers, and we had no much trouble.
>>>
>>> - I do not use delete key because I don't have one
>>> - circumflex accent (return) was working with my keyboard layout
>>>
>>> So the vm was to me in a completely usable state.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> now i understand we are humans and not immune to mistakes, but i
>>>> insist that committing to blessed
>>>
>>>
>>> 'blessed' is a crappy name for a repository. And the idea that the code in
>>> this repository is always working flawlessly is nonsense. For example, we
>>> had for months the problem with the smallinteger in there.
>>>
>>> And then, the unstable is in another repository then? Where is that
>>> repository? Why do we have to make another repository for that and not just
>>> a branch (in the same repo, not in my machine)?
>>>
>>
>> so what you proposing? lets everyone put own unfinished changes into
>> same repository
>> without synchronization and see how it flies?
>> it won't fly, i can tell you even without trying.
>>
>>>>
>>>> should be done after some manual testing and checking it don't breaks
>>>> things badly, and of course
>>>> blessed is not for committing the unfinished code , which in the
>>>> middle of work.
>>>
>>>
>>> First, we considered it as finished. What you found was a bug, not a pending
>>> to do task.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, in that case it is perfectly ok then.
>> It is your messages in previous mails gave me impression that it is
>> 'not done yet'
>> but 'work in progress' and change is not finished.
>>
>>> Second, I have not the time to change to and learn every keyboard layout to
>>> test, nor to plug every external keyboard and see how it behaves. So if you
>>> think we should have done that, it will never be finished, and we will die
>>> with what we have.
>>>
>>> Third, we need an unstable official branch for the pharo vm code for people
>>> to test. To me, as blessed is the only repository out there, it is the only
>>> place where I can put it.
>>>
>>
>> It is blessed in terms that every change you pushing there is blessed
>> by you (as developer),
>> which means "i recommend to use new version by others".
>> And until you can bless your own changes you should not push them into
>> this repository,
>> while obviously you free to push/commit them elsewhere.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is my only issue , that you committed code which is not yet
>>>> finished, and makes VM unusable,
>>>
>>>
>>> Now again. To me the latest vm was completely usable. How can I prove that
>>> the change is then finished if I do not test with every existing device and
>>> layout?
>>>
>>> So people has to test it. And let's be realistic: given the few people using
>>> nowadays the latest pharo vm, if I put my code in my own personal
>>> repository, how many people will download my experimental VM to test it from
>>> my hidden branch in my hidden and personal repo? I guess almost none.
>>>
>>> No one tests => never proved => never finished => never merged => dies
>>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> That does not work.
>>>
>>> So if bleesed is the stable branch, which is the latest unstable branch? Do
>>> we need many repositories for that?
>>>
>>
>> it is not stable branch, it is development.
>> stable versions come time to time, we can tag them as stable.
>>
>>>> and we cannot release VM with important fix to smallinteger bug before
>>>> you finish, which turns yourself
>>>> into a bottleneck.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can always go to the vm log
>>>
>>> https://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed/commits/master
>>>
>>> and check my last commits and try to rollback them in any case. This change
>>> was only two lines of code. I'm of course not the code owner.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, I'm tired to argue. I want to solve this by stating:
>>> - how do we get the latest unstable and where should the code be
>>> - how do we get the latest stable and where should the code be
>>>
>>> Something else is that I have the feeling that we are discussing because of
>>> the stupid "blessed" name. So I did this:
>>> - create a new pharovm repo inside https://gitorious.org/cogvm, the old
>>> blessed repo stays the same
>>> - I copied everything from the repo blessed to pharovm, including history
>>> - I created a blessed branch, which should in the future have the properties
>>> you like <=> latest stable
>>> - let master for latest bleedingEdge (not experimental, but maybe buggy)
>>>
>>> And then if we want other branches we create them.
>>>
>>> https://gitorious.org/cogvm/pharovm
>>
>> just one question: why adding 'blessed' branch if you think it is stupid?
>> name it stable then, since you don't understand/value of blessing or
>> consider it is stupid
>> and unnecessary.
>> but again, we don't need 'stable' as separate branch.. makes little sense,
>> since we can just tag certain versions as stable, like everyone else does.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Stasenko.
>>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.




More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list