April 2011 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo-project] Issue 3968 in pharo: ByteArray>>#asInteger
by pharo＠googlecode.com April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

Status: New Owner: ---- New issue 3968 by sven.van...(a)gmail.com: ByteArray>>#asInteger http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3968 Pharo 1.2.1 (proposal for 1.3) Since the methods #asByteArray and #asByteArrayOfSize: (part of System-Hashing-Core) exist, it would be logical that the inverse exists as well: ByteArray>>#asInteger | integer | integer := 0. self withIndexDo: [ :each :index | integer := integer + (each bitShift: (bytes size - index) * 8) ]. ^ integer Granted, these methods pick the most common ordering (network byte order, most significant byte first, big endian). We should note that in the comments. Adding endianness as a parameter would unnecessarily complicate the interface. Maybe a littleEndian variant could be provided (#asIntegerLittleEndian, #asByteArrayLittleEndian, #asByteArrayLittleEndianOfSize:) ? I've written this already in two projects, anybody else thinks this would be handy ? Sven

1 1

[Pharo-project] Issue 3948 in pharo: Transcript and ThreadedTranscript needs to be merged
by pharo＠googlecode.com April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

Status: Accepted Owner: marcus.d...(a)gmail.com Labels: Milestone-1.3 New issue 3948 by marcus.d...(a)gmail.com: Transcript and ThreadedTranscript needs to be merged http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3948 Transcript is now not a Stream subclass anymore. ThreadedTranscript's install method now destroys the Transcript class. Transcript now has a semaphore, so maybe it is thread safe? merge needed.

1 3

[Pharo-project] [update 1.3] #13134
by Marcus Denker April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

13134 ----- Issue 3959: A little dead code removal SmalltalkImage Issue 3962: More cleanup of PasteUpMorph Issue 2561: findTokens: String lf , String cr Issue 3966: String>>lines misses tests -- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.

1 0

[Pharo-project] Issue 3966 in pharo: String>>lines misses tests
by pharo＠googlecode.com April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

Status: FixToInclude Owner: damien.c...(a)gmail.com Labels: Type-Patch Difficulty-Easy Importance-Low Milestone-1.2.2 New issue 3966 by damien.c...(a)gmail.com: String>>lines misses tests http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3966 I've written a simple test for String>>lines: testLines | sampleCRString sampleLFString sampleCRLFString | sampleCRString := 'Fred', String cr , 'the' , String cr , 'Bear'. sampleLFString := 'Fred', String lf , 'the' , String lf , 'Bear'. sampleCRLFString := 'Fred', String crlf , 'the' , String crlf , 'Bear'. self assert: sampleCRString lines = #('Fred' 'the' 'Bear'). self assert: sampleLFString lines = #('Fred' 'the' 'Bear'). self assert: sampleCRLFString lines = #('Fred' 'the' 'Bear').

1 4

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 2561 in pharo: findTokens: String lf , String cr
by pharo＠googlecode.com April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

Comment #4 on issue 2561 by damien.c...(a)gmail.com: findTokens: String lf , String cr http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2561 Name: Monticello-DamienCassou.506 Author: DamienCassou Time: 6 April 2011, 8:31:01 am UUID: e8f7e433-2bd8-4681-9ff0-aede03ed8102 Ancestors: Monticello-MarcusDenker.505 - Issue 2561: findTokens: String lf , String cr. Changes MCFileBasedRepository>>notifyList

1 3

[Pharo-project] Issue 3962 in pharo: More cleanup of PasteUpMorph
by pharo＠googlecode.com April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

Status: FixProposed Owner: marcus.d...(a)gmail.com Labels: Milestone-1.3 New issue 3962 by marcus.d...(a)gmail.com: More cleanup of PasteUpMorph http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3962 ... related to World-In-World support and general dead code Attachments: CleanPasteUpM.1.cs 4.4 KB

1 1

[Pharo-project] Issue 3959 in pharo: A little dead code removal SmalltalkImage
by pharo＠googlecode.com April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

Status: FixProposed Owner: marcus.d...(a)gmail.com Labels: Milestone-1.3 New issue 3959 by marcus.d...(a)gmail.com: A little dead code removal SmalltalkImage http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3959 1) test for formatter SmalltalkImage removeSelector: #testFormatter! SmalltalkImage removeSelector: #testFormatter2! not used, the current pretty printer is crap anyway. 2) #shutDownSound Attachments: RemoveFormatterTestsSmalltalkImage.1.cs 190 bytes RemoveShutDownSound.1.cs 142 bytes

1 1

Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo 1.2.1. Setup for Win32 (including CogVM)
by Marcus Denker April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

On Apr 6, 2011, at 7:02 PM, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand wrote: > Hi, > > Installing O2 gives me a MNU, I've evaluated: > > "- If you want to use another System Browser than the default > (OmniBrowser), you can install O2 browser: " > > Gofer new > squeaksource: 'MetacelloRepository'; > package:'ConfigurationOfO2'; > load. > > ((Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfO2) project version: '1.2') load: 'Dev'. > > bug report attached. > It's noted to be fixed for 1.2.2: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3831 -- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.

1 0

Re: [Pharo-project] On fixed release planning [was: Actions done in 1.3]
by laurent laffont April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:30 AM, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont(a)gmail.com > > wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Planning is also important. >>> >>> Time is good, but another thing is i think we should think about, >>> what features we want to be in new release, and do not release until >>> they delivered. >>> >> >> I don't really like this. I prefer rhythm, agility. Timeboxing enables >> maximum value in each release. If a feature is really important, it will be >> on time. If not on time, it means it was no so important. >> > > I couldn't disagree more. Especially with VisualWorks time-boxing has > caused problems with quality and delivery of functionality. Fundamentally > there is no point putting out a release for the sake of it. A release is > about functionality, both new functionality and bug fixes. Without either > of these there is absolutely no point in releasing anything beyond > marketing. Yes, during a release one can make the call that because a > subset of the functionality will arrive much later than the rest of the > functionality it makes sense for that late functionality to slip the release > and arrive in a later one. But that doesn't imply putting out an > essentially empty release for the sake of promptness. > Let me talk about my experience. Quality may suffer with timeboxing without continuous integration and good test coverage. CI + tests enable timeboxing because I can maintain high quality level. And now we have CI it's wonderful. As a user, I like software developed with fixed iterations because I know exactly when it wil be released, plan upgrades and validations. I'm easily in sync. As a developer I like fixed iterations because 1/ We care more about quality. Cannot develop all this feature in the iteration ? do only a part and check that it works well - write missing tests. Not enough time left to integrate this feature ? Just work on the many details that we need to fix and integrate the new feature soon in next iteration. 2/ We maintain energy. No long waiting period of stuff xxxx to be done without realeasing. The more we wait, the less productive we are. 3/ I like to change the planning from "what features this version can't be released without ?" to "what can we develop in 1 / 3 / 6 months (with high quality) ?". 4/ ok I stop here. Even every day at work I'm timeboxing with 25mn iterations (Pomodoro technique) for several years - I cannot live without now. That makes me deliver a lot of energy. I've never seen empty release because of fixed iterations. And even if the release contains only fixed bugs, details adjustment and no new big feature it's great. Details matters a lot. In a former job my team was doing a new features iteration, then a "care about details iteration", then a new features iteration, and so on.... it was a lot of fun and worked. Indeed I would like try and see if it works with Pharo. I also would like Pharo to be a reference of modern agile development - that would be a step forward. Laurent. > > One thing I do approve of is maintennance releases, where some time after > an initial release one puts out a maintennance release that only contains > bug fixes and no new functionality and I think there are good arguments for > and positive experience with scheduling the maintennance release to arrive > at some fixed time after the first release, e.g. 4 to 6 months. But major > releases must IMO be driven by content. > > best > Eliot > > >> >> Always green test is a must-have. >> >> >> >>> Besides bug fixing and minor improvements, there should be some >>> functionality which we want to have in new release, >>> >> >> That should be a goal, but don't delay a release because the feature is >> not here. If releases are often ( for example every 3 months), shorter, it >> won't be a big problem to wait for the next one. >> >> I prefer to have a release *now* without my feature and wait 3 months for >> the next release than no release and waiting for 3 months more with less and >> less energy. >> >> >> Laurent. >> >> >>> so then you could say: 1.x is better than previous because of A,B,C, >>> but not because a,b,c ( capital letters is major stuff, while regular >>> ones is for minor stuff ) :) >>> >>> >>> On 6 April 2011 10:01, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM, laurent laffont >>> > <laurent.laffont(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck >>> >> <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes!!! totally agree. Now that we release 1.2, I would freeze and >>> release >>> >>> PharoCore 1.3 beta. Update the link to stable pharo to that, and >>> start >>> >>> trying to load the dev tools there. >>> >> >>> >> +10 >>> >> And propose a fixed date for release - no compromise, will be release >>> at >>> >> this date. >>> > >>> > +1 >>> > Timeboxing sounds great. >>> > Podomoro for software development ;-) >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > -- >>> > Serge Stinckwich >>> > UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam >>> > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >>> > http://doesnotunderstand.org/ >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >>> >>> >> >

2 1

Re: [Pharo-project] Actions done in 1.3
by Marcus Denker April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

On Apr 5, 2011, at 9:10 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > Hi guys > > to help us in the future I started > > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ActionsInPharoOneDotThree > > The list starts to get long... Maybe we should do a 1.3 release soon... -- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.

8 11