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

Re: [Pharo-dev] MC Filetree -- missing FiletreeURL ?

by stephane ducasse

On May 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> PS: we are ants running around while elephants (python, ruby, Javascripts) are passing close by. >> Not making serious progress is death. > > And that's why I don't push Smalltalk as an option at work. It's too > different, it has too many special requirements. May be but with this state of mind then we should all better to something else. And we are all working on Pharo just to make it shiny and a tool of choice to build complex system. And we are getting really there. We do not have the luxury to think that Pharo is only for research. Else life would be easier but probably less challenging too. > That's exactly why I > push the things I do.

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] MC Filetree -- missing FiletreeURL ?

by Frank Shearar

On 22 May 2013 15:25, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> There IS a reason pharo forked from squeak... >> >> I'm not pursuing this thread: it's my understanding that the fork was >> largely political, and personal, and that's as far as I'm going to >> talk about it. > > Reducing Pharo to a personal decision is ridiculous but you can believe it > if you want. Then I do not know what is politic. > Pharo exists to create a sustainable eco system where companies > can make money and wealth/knowledge/innovation can expand. > We started Pharo because we could not do it with Squeak. No more no less. I believe the things I do regarding the fork because of personal conversations with people close to the decision. > If you ask me, we should have started to do Pharo way before because we all lost > energy for nothing. If I should redo it I would. That may be so. Squeak in 2013 is not the same community as Squeak in 2007/2008 (and not just because most of the community moved to Pharo). frank

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] MC Filetree -- missing FiletreeURL ?

by Frank Shearar

On 22 May 2013 15:14, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)free.fr> wrote: >> Well. What I should have asked was "have you cloned the repository >> with the intention of pushing improvements upstream, or have you >> forked the project with no intention of pushing changes upstream?" > > what means pushing changes upstream? > to the original gofer repo? Yes. >> Because the latter option makes it more difficult/less useful for me >> to think about submitting changes to Gofer. I've no interest in >> arguing about the merits of either position: I'm quite clear on how >> _I_ feel about things (namely, push changes upstream), but I do not >> want to fight over _your_ feelings on the matter. I just want to know >> where Pharo stands on the issue of changes to codebases that might be >> shared between Pharo and Squeak. (Gofer, Metacello, FileTree for >> starters.) > > Do we have the energy for that? Should we spent manpower? Who pay it > and what else could they do instead? These are the questions I asked myself. These are exactly the questions I ask myself too. Now if Lukas has abandoned Gofer, that's a different story: if the upstream maintainer has disappeared then forking Gofer is an act of survival. But that's not the answer that anyone's given me. "Look at what we've done" is all I've had so far. To be fair, sometimes the people who can answer (like yourself!) are busy doing other utterly necessary things. So: if Lukas' Gofer is effectively abandoned, then so be it: Pharo's fork is the new canonical repo (de facto: it's the one that's maintained), and Pharo's repo is where Gofer enhancements should go. I'm happy with that. > I ***fight*** every day to push business around Pharo and to get credibility around our research and Pharo. > This is a ***constant*** fight. Now I have no clue what is the vision behind squeak if any and > why people doing business would use it instead of Pharo. But at the end of the > day I cannot do anything about it soâ¦. > Now I'm concerned that it can have an impact and slow us. Just having large configurationOf > that starts to get complex to read/change and tests makes me nervous. > Stef > > PS: we are ants running around while elephants (python, ruby, Javascripts) are passing close by. > Not making serious progress is death. And that's why I don't push Smalltalk as an option at work. It's too different, it has too many special requirements. That's exactly why I push the things I do. frank

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] MC Filetree -- missing FiletreeURL ?

by Goubier Thierry

Le 22/05/2013 16:16, stephane ducasse a Ã©crit : > >>> Well. What I should have asked was "have you cloned the repository >>> with the intention of pushing improvements upstream, or have you >>> forked the project with no intention of pushing changes upstream?" >> >> Now, I'd have a question related to that. Where should I push my changes ? >> >> Or give up on updating Gofer and use eval instead of config for my package loading. > > We are welcoming enhancements to Gofer. Ok. I have something ready, but it's an update to FileTree itself and it creates a dependency from FileTree to Gofer. Camillo has added an issue to Monticello, so I can upload i there. I'm not keen on adding a dependency between Gofer and FileTree, Gofer being a part of the Pharo core, and FileTree outside of it. Thierry -- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des SystÃ¨mes Temps RÃ©el EmbarquÃ©s 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] MC Filetree -- missing FiletreeURL ?

by stephane ducasse

>> There IS a reason pharo forked from squeak... > > I'm not pursuing this thread: it's my understanding that the fork was > largely political, and personal, and that's as far as I'm going to > talk about it. Reducing Pharo to a personal decision is ridiculous but you can believe it if you want. Then I do not know what is politic. Pharo exists to create a sustainable eco system where companies can make money and wealth/knowledge/innovation can expand. We started Pharo because we could not do it with Squeak. No more no less. If you ask me, we should have started to do Pharo way before because we all lost energy for nothing. If I should redo it I would. Stef

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] MC Filetree -- missing FiletreeURL ?

by stephane ducasse

> > Sorry, was that supposed to be an answer? I must go find out how much > work you've done before guessing whether you've forked and abandoned > upstream? > > Like I said: What I want to know is this: if I want to make a change > to infrastructure common to multiple Smalltalks, does Pharo expect me > to submit special unique snowflake additions to Pharo AND to upstream? Frank this is a question of energy and money. If you have the energy to push changes towards us we will accept them if they do not break Pharo nor hamper us to move on. We are not against collaboration. Now we are focused on our goal. We are fighting to get time to push Pharo, we are fighting to get resources so we pay attention to where we spent them. Stef

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] MC Filetree -- missing FiletreeURL ?

by stephane ducasse

>> Well. What I should have asked was "have you cloned the repository >> with the intention of pushing improvements upstream, or have you >> forked the project with no intention of pushing changes upstream?" > > Now, I'd have a question related to that. Where should I push my changes ? > > Or give up on updating Gofer and use eval instead of config for my package loading. We are welcoming enhancements to Gofer. >> Because the latter option makes it more difficult/less useful for me >> to think about submitting changes to Gofer. I've no interest in >> arguing about the merits of either position: I'm quite clear on how >> _I_ feel about things (namely, push changes upstream), but I do not >> want to fight over _your_ feelings on the matter. I just want to know >> where Pharo stands on the issue of changes to codebases that might be >> shared between Pharo and Squeak. (Gofer, Metacello, FileTree for >> starters.) > > I'll start then to worry about the fact I'm relying on FileTree in the first place, then, since this is not a part of the Pharo infrastructure. > > But I couldn't find a way to get my git integration to work otherwise. > > Thierry > -- > Thierry Goubier > CEA list > Laboratoire des Fondations des SystÃ¨mes Temps RÃ©el EmbarquÃ©s > 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex > France > Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95 >

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] MC Filetree -- missing FiletreeURL ?

by stephane ducasse

> Well. What I should have asked was "have you cloned the repository > with the intention of pushing improvements upstream, or have you > forked the project with no intention of pushing changes upstream?" what means pushing changes upstream? to the original gofer repo? > Because the latter option makes it more difficult/less useful for me > to think about submitting changes to Gofer. I've no interest in > arguing about the merits of either position: I'm quite clear on how > _I_ feel about things (namely, push changes upstream), but I do not > want to fight over _your_ feelings on the matter. I just want to know > where Pharo stands on the issue of changes to codebases that might be > shared between Pharo and Squeak. (Gofer, Metacello, FileTree for > starters.) Do we have the energy for that? Should we spent manpower? Who pay it and what else could they do instead? These are the questions I asked myself. I ***fight*** every day to push business around Pharo and to get credibility around our research and Pharo. This is a ***constant*** fight. Now I have no clue what is the vision behind squeak if any and why people doing business would use it instead of Pharo. But at the end of the day I cannot do anything about it soâ¦. Now I'm concerned that it can have an impact and slow us. Just having large configurationOf that starts to get complex to read/change and tests makes me nervous. Stef PS: we are ants running around while elephants (python, ruby, Javascripts) are passing close by. Not making serious progress is death.

May 22, 2013

[update 3.0] #30158

by Marcus Denker

30158 ----- 10723 Use Opal for semantic analisys in suggestions https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10723 10707 Instance variable #askOkToClose is duplicated in WindowModel (already defined in ComposableModel) https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10707 Diff information: http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/Pharo30/main/Spec-Widgets-MarcusDenker.184… http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/Pharo30/main/SmartSuggestions-MarcusDenker…

May 22, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Bug in SimpleSwitchMorph

by stephane ducasse

I will try to clean a bit But this "SimpleButtonMorph" is not so simple Now by redefining SimpleSwitchMorph>>mouseMove: evt ^ self I addressed the bug. But all the code tells me that this is too complex. Ben I would like to pair program with you to define a B Here is a list of things I saw and found not good. mouseDownMilleseconds is not usedâ¦. IconicButton>>interactSelector ^ #interact IconicButton>>update: aSelector aSelector = self interactSelector ifTrue: [ ^ self doButtonAction ]. super update: aSelector SimpleButtonMorph>>label | s | s := ''. self allMorphsDo: [:m | (m isKindOf: StringMorph) ifTrue: [s := m contents]]. ^ s and SimpleButtonMorph>>label: aString font: aFont label ifNotNil: [label delete]. label := StringMorph contents: aString font: (aFont ifNil: [StandardFonts buttonFont]). self extent: (label width + 6) @ (label height + 6). label position: self center - (label extent // 2). self addMorph: label. label lock SimpleButtonMorph>>actionSelector: aSymbolOrString (nil = aSymbolOrString or: ['nil' = aSymbolOrString or: [aSymbolOrString isEmpty]]) ifTrue: [^ actionSelector := nil]. actionSelector := aSymbolOrString asSymbol. berk! SimpleButtonMorph>>arguments: aCollection arguments := aCollection asArray copy. we copy here and there. SimpleSwitchMorph>>doButtonAction "Perform the action of this button. The last argument of the message sent to the target is the new state of this switch." | newState | (target notNil and: [actionSelector notNil]) ifTrue: [newState := color = onColor. target perform: actionSelector withArguments: (arguments copyWith: newState)]

May 22, 2013