December 2013 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo3 issues

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:44, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:38, jannik.laval <jannik.laval(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am porting Phratch in Pharo 3.0 and I have some problems with the interface. >> I uses a one-click Pharo3.0 #30664 >> >> Here is a list of what I have: >> >> - in a debugger, it is not possible to do a Cmd-p to evaluate an expression. This appears only if I select with the mouse. If I make the selection with shift-arrow it works. >> It means that the selection with mouse or with shift-arrow are not the same. >> > yes, known bug. Introduced by 12144 TextModel>>getSelection. The only solution seems to be to revert tag for now: > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12521/Undo-12144-TextModel-getSelection I tried during 3 hours to get the integration up and running and this entry was the first one on my list :) > > This will be in the next update. (I was offline more or less since thursday due to helping my brother moving, so this is not integrated yet) > >> - In monticello browser: when I select my project, all the repositories available in Pharo are shown. As in Pharo 2.0, it should show only the concerned repositories (2 or 3 max). >> > Yes, this was made on purpose and there is an issue that questions if that idea was good: > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10551/All-Monticello-Repositories-are-add… > (this issue is from July) > > >> - In a browser, when I did a change in the source code of a method, then I select another method, the changes are lost, without asking if I want to save changes. >> > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12223/Nautilus-loses-changes > (issue date: 22/11) > > In short: if there would be more people *actively* helping on the issue tracker front, you would not even have seen those problems. > > > Marcus

Dec. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] FogBugz status change

by kilon alios

"If Linus Torvald is your model, then I quit Pharo :P Ben" And I am coming with you , running :D "please donât. Democracy does not make sense. Do you think that linus is taking into account democracy vote when fixing core of linux? Stef" I would say that lack of Democracy makes no sense for a product that aims to please / make people happy. Because if you take pharo towards a direction people do not like, then people will leave. They wont report a bug, they wont post in the mailing list complaining about the things that truly annoy them, they wont make a blog post, they may not even think much about it. One second they are here, the next one, they are gone , for good. Because who want to use a product that does not care about his/her needs, I know I don't. I think a voting system is a great idea to really get the heart and beat of your community. Also you may think that every random user will want to vote on an issue but you are wrong , people are way more likely to vote on things they know because its things they deeply care about , this is why democracy has been the most successful system in the only city that it ever existed , ancient Athens. When a person votes on an issue he votes because he cares, he has an interest for it, its something that is not new to him, its something that somehow deeply affects him. It does not mean that everyone will vote for everything. Why ? because everyone does not care about everything. I dont care how VM is designed, so I would not care to vote on VM issues, but GUIs is my thing as are Graphic libraries and yes I would like to have a saying on it. I have already posted on this list about the benefits of PIP in Python, how things are modified and added to python with a consensus from the community or at least the community is aware of what is going on. Python really cares about its code base, and they enjoy the fruits of this appreciation. I agree however that integration should be a product of discussion and not just based on voting. Again this is why python uses PIP which sets out the issues and pros and cons. In Ancient Athens there was a deep discussion before anything was set to a vote. Democracy and discussion are two things that go hand in hand, so you need way more than just a voting system to have a Democracy. Fortunately Fogbuz is already equipped with that.

Dec. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] FogBugz status change

by Norbert Hartl

+1 Am 30.12.2013 um 17:30 schrieb Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo(a)gmail.com>: > If Linus Torvald is your model, then I quit Pharo :P > > Ben > > On 30 Dec 2013, at 17:12, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >> please donât. >> Democracy does not make sense. Do you think that linus is taking into account democracy vote when fixing core of linux? >> >> Stef >> >> >>> Since we can inject javascript in fogbugz, we should give a try to add a voting system :P >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:12, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 29 Dec 2013, at 23:34, btc(a)openinworld.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> thatâs usually done by the integrators, but nothing prevents you to do it :) >>>>>> >>>>> I thought wider community involvement was encouraged for anyone to provide the peer review to move items to status Resolved Fix To Include >>>>> with the integrators then moving it to status Resolved Fix Included (and then usually straight to Closed status) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, but for a real working system we would need a voting schemeâ¦ >>>> >>>> right now it matters not much as everything is manual, but of it would be automatic, it would be nice to have something like âtwo people >>>> who are commuters say itâs goo then it is good to be integrated automaticallyâ.] >>>> >>>> >>>> Right now the idea is that people can set the âfix to includeâ if they are 150% sure that is is a good change. Itâs better to just add a note >>>> to the âfix review neededâ so then someone else will say âhe thinks itâs good, I double checked, so itâs goodâ. >>>> >>>> So, in short: we need a better system, but for now it kind of works. >>>> >>>> Marcus >>>> >>>> >>> >> >

Dec. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] pharo 3.0 image

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Yes I thought so too. Stef On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:06, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On 29 Dec 2013, at 22:16, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> yeah, but I also remember a discussion of ânow, sources should be always (and just there) with vmâ¦ or the oppositeââ¦ >> but I do not remember the result of that discussion and this could be a consequence of that. Marcus will know better for sure (letâs wait he is back from his holidays :) ) >> > > I am back and going through lots of mailsâ¦. > > So: I thought this was fixed. Seemingly there was a regressionâ¦ > > There is another issue that we need to have a look at related (not the same): > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11908/Need-to-show-warning-when-no-change… > >

Dec. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] FogBugz status change

by Marcus Denker

On 30 Dec 2013, at 17:13, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > please donât. > Democracy does not make sense. Do you think that linus is taking into account democracy vote when fixing core of linux? > No, the idea is *not* democracyâ¦ because itâs not that lots of e.g. newbies like a change that it should be done ;-) What I want is a way so that people can easily mark that they like it. The rule would be that e.g. one needs 2 yes votes in total, but one needs to be from a core committer (or even integrator). Marcus

Dec. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Thank you for Pharo

by Marcus Denker

On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:23, Torsten Bergmann <astares(a)gmx.de> wrote: >> Thank you for Pharo â¦. >> >> I am following the development of Pharo since its fork from Squeak, and i am really impressed what you crazy guys all have archived the last years. It all >> evolved to really nice language, a fantastic nice looking live programming environment, cool packages and a growing ecosystems. >> I have so much fun using Pharo. Thank you. > > We all appreciate when Pharo is useful. But it is not yet finished (if it ever will) and you are welcome to help moving it forward as > yet another crazy guy. Step by step it goes ... > The secret is that even incremental progress is non-linear *if* you mange to build a feedback loop. It is a tiny (insignificant, even) improvement, but it is applied to what is the implementation *and* the tools that are used to do the next improvement. This means that the next tiny improvement will be a little bit larger, leading to the one after that being a little bit more, and so on. Every improvement is tiny judging from the prior state, but if you compare it to 100 iterations back it will look completely impossible from that point of view, as the change seen as a one-step linear change would be extremely (even impossibly) large. As a bonus, as the result was not done with large prior planning but in a continuous process, this way of doing avoids traps of waterfall approaches: one can start to move even with plans unfinished or take the fact into account that everyone learns while doing and what you thought would be so great will always look insignificant once completed. In addition it allows for Bootstrapping, even taking things like financing and manpower into account. Even though the process is not finished (and the goal not reached), it can support its own evolution, as opposed to having to finish everything before e.g. supporting peoples work and life. Marcus

Dec. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] FogBugz status change

by Benjamin

If Linus Torvald is your model, then I quit Pharo :P Ben On 30 Dec 2013, at 17:12, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > please donât. > Democracy does not make sense. Do you think that linus is taking into account democracy vote when fixing core of linux? > > Stef > > >> Since we can inject javascript in fogbugz, we should give a try to add a voting system :P >> >> Ben >> >> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:12, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 29 Dec 2013, at 23:34, btc(a)openinworld.com wrote: >>> >>>> Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >>>>> >>>>> thatâs usually done by the integrators, but nothing prevents you to do it :) >>>>> >>>> I thought wider community involvement was encouraged for anyone to provide the peer review to move items to status Resolved Fix To Include >>>> with the integrators then moving it to status Resolved Fix Included (and then usually straight to Closed status) >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but for a real working system we would need a voting schemeâ¦ >>> >>> right now it matters not much as everything is manual, but of it would be automatic, it would be nice to have something like âtwo people >>> who are commuters say itâs goo then it is good to be integrated automaticallyâ.] >>> >>> >>> Right now the idea is that people can set the âfix to includeâ if they are 150% sure that is is a good change. Itâs better to just add a note >>> to the âfix review neededâ so then someone else will say âhe thinks itâs good, I double checked, so itâs goodâ. >>> >>> So, in short: we need a better system, but for now it kind of works. >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> >> >

Dec. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo3 issues

by jannik laval

Thank you for your answers guys. Jannik 2013/12/30 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> > > On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:38, jannik.laval <jannik.laval(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I am porting Phratch in Pharo 3.0 and I have some problems with the > interface. > > I uses a one-click Pharo3.0 #30664 > > > > Here is a list of what I have: > > > > - in a debugger, it is not possible to do a Cmd-p to evaluate an > expression. This appears only if I select with the mouse. If I make the > selection with shift-arrow it works. > > It means that the selection with mouse or with shift-arrow are not the > same. > > > yes, known bug. Introduced by 12144 TextModel>>getSelection. The only > solution seems to be to revert tag for now: > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12521/Undo-12144-TextModel-getSelection > > This will be in the next update. (I was offline more or less since > thursday due to helping my brother moving, so this is not integrated yet) > > > - In monticello browser: when I select my project, all the repositories > available in Pharo are shown. As in Pharo 2.0, it should show only the > concerned repositories (2 or 3 max). > > > Yes, this was made on purpose and there is an issue that questions if that > idea was good: > > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10551/All-Monticello-Repositories-are-add… > (this issue is from July) > > > > - In a browser, when I did a change in the source code of a method, then > I select another method, the changes are lost, without asking if I want to > save changes. > > > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12223/Nautilus-loses-changes > (issue date: 22/11) > > In short: if there would be more people *actively* helping on the issue > tracker front, you would not even have seen those problems. > > > Marcus > -- ~~Jannik Laval~~ Ãcole des Mines de Douai Enseignant-chercheur http://www.jannik-laval.eu http://car.mines-douai.fr/

Dec. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] FogBugz status change

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

please donât. Democracy does not make sense. Do you think that linus is taking into account democracy vote when fixing core of linux? Stef > Since we can inject javascript in fogbugz, we should give a try to add a voting system :P > > Ben > > On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:12, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >> >> On 29 Dec 2013, at 23:34, btc(a)openinworld.com wrote: >> >>> Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >>>> >>>> thatâs usually done by the integrators, but nothing prevents you to do it :) >>>> >>> I thought wider community involvement was encouraged for anyone to provide the peer review to move items to status Resolved Fix To Include >>> with the integrators then moving it to status Resolved Fix Included (and then usually straight to Closed status) >>> >> >> Yes, but for a real working system we would need a voting schemeâ¦ >> >> right now it matters not much as everything is manual, but of it would be automatic, it would be nice to have something like âtwo people >> who are commuters say itâs goo then it is good to be integrated automaticallyâ.] >> >> >> Right now the idea is that people can set the âfix to includeâ if they are 150% sure that is is a good change. Itâs better to just add a note >> to the âfix review neededâ so then someone else will say âhe thinks itâs good, I double checked, so itâs goodâ. >> >> So, in short: we need a better system, but for now it kind of works. >> >> Marcus >> >> >

Dec. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] FogBugz status change

by Marcus Denker

On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:24, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Since we can inject javascript in fogbugz, we should give a try to add a voting system :P > that would be nice .. :-) Marcus

Dec. 30, 2013