December 2014 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] SmalltalkHub bugs & hangs :-(

by Esteban A. Maringolo

> > > My comment was not about discussing the pros and cons of closed versus > open source software. My concerns are more about reliability. > For me it's totally Ok to use git for versioning IF the tools are there. > Squak and Pharo have decent versioning systems that suit their internal > needs. There is room for improvements, that's for sure. > For me Smalltalk is a system and not a simple language with some arbitrary > tools that can be replaced easily. > > The problem is whether the tools you choose for "commoditized" tasks (e.g. SCM) limit the amount of manpower that could contribute to your open source project. Forks and pull-requests are the way most open source projects fix bugs and integrates enhancements. You can't do branching with current tooling (read: Monticello) without suffering proportional to its complexity. No one said tools can be replaced easily, and that's the reason we still use Monticello, some of us backed by old mcz files, others already using some git behind it. Regards,

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] SmalltalkHub bugs & hangs :-(

by Andreas Wacknitz

Am 01.12.14 um 19:56 schrieb kilon alios: > "It's not a matter of SourceTree or other program, it's about your git > GUI app of preference. You can use plain git from the command line if > you prefer. > > The git repo is portable, the client is up to you." > > +1000 > > exactly and that is something I advocate. > > You cant use Sourcetree on linux ? no problemo use SmartGit > > you prefer using Emacs ? no problemo use magit. > > you prefer the terminal ? no problemo use the terminal. I prefer the Smalltalk environment. > > The cool thing is that it does not really matter what you choose > because all tools follow the git workflow, the rest is just a matter > of preference. > > The disadvantage of sticking just with Pharo ? you will be lucky to be > able to use a single tool and you will be also lucky if that tool has > a substantial fraction of the features of some of the external tools. > > Bigger community , bigger competition and cooperation. Quantity > brings quality. > Sorry, if that would be true then Java or C# would be of extraordinary quality. Smalltalk has been there for more than 30 years and will probably another 30 years. Hypes come and go. Quantity for me seems more like the opposite of quality. > "Non-portable programs die with their system." > > Good luck waiting for MacOS and Windows to die. Why shouldn't they be able to die? There have been other successful companies before. Do you remember Netware? The market leader in networking, almost gone. What about DEC? Gone. Windows is already declining and the Microsoft desparately tries to find new ways to get back. Regarding Apple: They seem to be more interested in iPhone and iPad than in Macs. Obviously they earn a lot more in this field. IMO Apple and Microsoft have one thing in common these days: they make their products life style products that can be used by everybody. Alas for your work needs their operating systems get worse with every release. Windows XP and Snow Leopard are being seen as the best versions by some... Nothing lasts forever so you can be sure that Windows and Mac OSX will die some day. > > "Closed source programs die with their company." > > a) if something "dies" that does not make it useless > > b) The beauty of capitalism is that as long there is demand there is > going to be supply. So you will never run out of options. Aint working > like that with open source I am afraid. That is not quite true. Look at what Oracle did with Solaris: They are not interested in the mass market. If you don't have millions (better billions) to spend they don't care about you. That's also possible in capitalism: you can ask very high prices so most people and companies cannot (or will not) be able to affort it or you can deny to sell a product. You don't even need a good explanation for it. > > I am all for open source, I am a huge fan and if I could I would use > 100% open source if it satisfied me but you cant just push under the > carpet the advantages of closed source software even if you are > Richard Stallman. Plus we are MIT not GPL ;) My comment was not about discussing the pros and cons of closed versus open source software. My concerns are more about reliability. For me it's totally Ok to use git for versioning IF the tools are there. Squak and Pharo have decent versioning systems that suit their internal needs. There is room for improvements, that's for sure. For me Smalltalk is a system and not a simple language with some arbitrary tools that can be replaced easily. Andreas

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] ubuntu vm build

by Markus Fritsche

Hello Norbert, the ubuntu vm build is in the process of being switched from Damien Cassou to me. I will update the PPA asap. Markus On 01.12.2014 19:36, Norbert Hartl wrote: > Hi, > > I forgot who is maintaining the ubuntu launchpad ppa vm build. But whoever you are ( :) ) would it be possible to include a vm build for the actual ubuntu release utopic unicorn? > > thanks, > > Norbert > >

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Video Tutorial - Github for Pharo using Sourcetree

by Dale Henrichs

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Le 01/12/2014 19:21, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > >> >> also, in a point (not now, but eventually)â¦ we will need to drop >> something. The idea of keeping anything ad eternum just does not scales. >> > > But it's a good way of delaying git integration in the Pharo platform by > having to redesign the file format as well. > > Thierry, Not sure if you are being sarcastic here:) I just don't see how the current FileTree format "delays git integration in the Pharo platform." I consider git integrated into tODE and tODE uses FileTree. Perhaps it's a matter of approach. In tODE the git support is NOT centered on the package browser ... the git support is built into the "system browser" so you can look at git history from a class, method OR package perspective ... Other perspectives are possible as it is relatively straightforward to pull up the git history of any directory or file ... and git integration should include the ability to view diffs and merge non-smalltalk files... A package is just one of the artifacts that is stored in a git repository. Monticello packages have Monticello characteristics ... Cypress packages without Monticello meta data[1] are another package format and they have slightly different characteristics than Monticello packages and they are equally supported by tODE. [To be fair the Cypress package support is still experimental but a year ago I was doing active development using tODE and Cypress packages in conjunction with Monticello packages]. FileTree intentionally supports Monticello-style packages so that the FileTree packages can leverage the existing Monticello-based tools like Metacello (I had to extend Metacello to support Cypress-based packages) or the Monticello Browser. So at the end of the day, I think that git integration for Pharo depends upon a broader approach to integrating git-based tools throughout the tool eco-system. Once you start looking at a chunk of versioned disk as containing more than just Smalltalk source code there a numerous possibilities for building in-image tool support for distributing, sharing and maintaining documentation, workspaces, plugins, deployment scripts, etc. way beyond the limitations of a package ... Dale [1] https://github.com/rjsargent/CypressReferenceImplementation

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] SmalltalkHub bugs & hangs :-(

by kilon alios

"It's not a matter of SourceTree or other program, it's about your git GUI app of preference. You can use plain git from the command line if you prefer. The git repo is portable, the client is up to you." +1000 exactly and that is something I advocate. You cant use Sourcetree on linux ? no problemo use SmartGit you prefer using Emacs ? no problemo use magit. you prefer the terminal ? no problemo use the terminal. The cool thing is that it does not really matter what you choose because all tools follow the git workflow, the rest is just a matter of preference. The disadvantage of sticking just with Pharo ? you will be lucky to be able to use a single tool and you will be also lucky if that tool has a substantial fraction of the features of some of the external tools. Bigger community , bigger competition and cooperation. Quantity brings quality. "Non-portable programs die with their system." Good luck waiting for MacOS and Windows to die. "Closed source programs die with their company." a) if something "dies" that does not make it useless b) The beauty of capitalism is that as long there is demand there is going to be supply. So you will never run out of options. Aint working like that with open source I am afraid. I am all for open source, I am a huge fan and if I could I would use 100% open source if it satisfied me but you cant just push under the carpet the advantages of closed source software even if you are Richard Stallman. Plus we are MIT not GPL ;)

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Duration year

by Esteban A. Maringolo

I think we discussed this a few months ago. The problem is "unsolvable" as it is now, IMHO, because all the chronology objects are based on "offset" representations (since an epoch), instead of a "field based" representation. IMHO, the only way to have a proper "semantic" representation is to have field based date classes (like Java's Calendar object, not the best implementation though). Ej, which one of the followings is OK? '2012-02-29' asDate + 1 year "=> 2013-02-28" '2011-03-01' asDate + 1 year "=> 2012-02-29" '2011-03-01' asDate addMonths: 12 "=> 2012-03-01" Regards! El Mon Dec 01 2014 at 3:11:56 PM, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb(a)gmail.com> escribiÃ³: > Hi. > > I was working on a GenericYear that was intended to be used for > DateAndTime calculus - to be able to add and subtract an arbitrary number > of years. The class by itself would not know the days - it is an arbitrary > (generic) Year. > > It would only know the number of days when it is added (or subtracted) > from an actual date (or timespan). The idea was that it would have a very > specific and limited scope of responsibility. > > -cbc > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Hilaire <hilaire(a)drgeo.eu> wrote: > >> I saw some discussion about Duration and year calculus in the list >> >> Given that it is impossible to determine the number of days in a year >> without the calendar years, should not 365.25 be used in place of 365 to >> minimize the error ? >> >> So it could look like: >> >> Duration class >> years: aNumber >> ^ self days: (aNumber * 365.25) truncated seconds: 0 >> >> >> Hilaire >> >> -- >> Dr. Geo - http://drgeo.eu >> iStoa - http://istoa.drgeo.eu >> >> >> >

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] WhatsUp from: 2014-12-01 until: 2014-12-14

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:00 AM, <seaside(a)rmod.lille.inria.fr> wrote: > Hi! We're sending this automatic email twice a month, to give the > community an opportunity to easily know what's happening and to coordinate > efforts. Just answer informally, and feel free to spawn discussions > thereafter! > > ### Here's what I've been up to since the last WhatsUp: > > > - I gave 3 Smalltalk/Pharo related presentations (Web Development with Smalltalk, Smalltalk and Business, and Marea) at http://ilas.memi.umss.edu.bo/ (sponsored by ESUG). Slides: http://www.slideshare.net/MarianoMartinezPeck/web-development-with-smalltalk http://www.slideshare.net/MarianoMartinezPeck/smalltalk-and-business http://www.slideshare.net/MarianoMartinezPeck/thesis-presentation-14987645 I hope at least to get some guys involved! > > ### What's next, until 2014-12-14 (*): > > > Back to work and update CV. > > (*) we'll be expecting results by then ;) > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Video Tutorial - Github for Pharo using Sourcetree

by Thierry Goubier

Le 01/12/2014 19:21, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > >> On 01 Dec 2014, at 19:11, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Dale, >> >> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Dale Henrichs >> <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com >> <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote: >> >> Eliot, >> >> If we remove the meta data from the FileTree repo, then it will be >> necessary to use the `adopt` command to restore the proper version >> history before interchanging copying to an mcz repo or trying to >> merge with an mcz package ... >> >> `adopt` is not an ideal solution, which is exactly why I've >> (stubbornly) maintained the monticello meta data ... >> >> >> So *please* continue to be stubborn :-) > > but this is a limitation of gitfiletree. This is a limitation of FileTree, not GitFileTree. > real git integration (using libgit2) should be perfectly capable of > reconstruct history without any metadata. As GitFileTree has been doing without libgit2 for, how long already? > also, in a point (not now, but eventually)â¦ we will need to drop > something. The idea of keeping anything ad eternum just does not scales. But it's a good way of delaying git integration in the Pharo platform by having to redesign the file format as well. Thierry > Esteban > > >> >> My statement about "as the community begins to use git-based repos >> as their primary repository" includes a broad definition of >> community, in my mind:) >> >> >> +1 >> >> Cross-platform package portability has always been one of my >> primary concerns and I do share your concern that it's a big step >> to remove the monticello meta data from FileTree (again it's why I >> haven't done so yet) ... >> >> So far this is a bridge that doesn't need to be crossed, but when >> it becomes time to cross it, there might be other options that can >> be applied (perhaps an ancestry can be synthesized from the git >> meta data?) > > exactly. > >> >> Which would be reasonable, but it needs to be there. And thanks. >> >> Dale >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Eliot Miranda >> <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com <mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Dale, >> >> On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Dale Henrichs >> <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com >> <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 7:51 AM, kilon alios >>> <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com <mailto:kilon.alios@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> So far all I knew that using git for binary files was a >>> no go, doable but not recommended. Thus I found strange >>> that filetree uses binary files. >>> >>> >>> Well the files are text files, but because the text >>> represents structured data, the line-based auto-merge used by >>> git is not correct ... >>> >>> The monticello version files have been included in FileTree >>> to make it possible to move the packages seamlessly between >>> Filetree-based repositories and mcz based repositories ... >>> without that meta data, once you move a package to FileTree >>> it could not be moved back into an mcz repository without >>> losing all of the package history. >>> >>> When I was first introducing FileTree, I thought it was >>> important that folks be able to test out the git waters >>> without making an "irreversible commitment to git." Even >>> today I find myself needing to move packages back and forth >>> between git and mcz repositories, so Thierry's merge-tools >>> has made it possible for me to have my cake and eat it too. >>> >>> I have been threatening to remove the monticello meta data >>> from FileTree (or at least make it optional), but I just >>> haven't had the time or motivation to do so ... again >>> Thierry's merge-tool means that I never have to deal with a >>> manual merge of the version file, so for me I never have to >>> think about it ... >>> >>> As the tool sets for supporting git improve and as the >>> community begins to use git-based repos as their primary >>> repository, it will make sense to remove the monticello meta >>> data from FileTree ... >> >> Will that mean that packages will still be able to be >> interchanged with Monticello? If yes, will that mean that >> packages will still be able to be merged with Monticello? >> >>> Dale >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> best, >> Eliot >

Dec. 1, 2014

ubuntu vm build

by Norbert Hartl

Hi, I forgot who is maintaining the ubuntu launchpad ppa vm build. But whoever you are ( :) ) would it be possible to include a vm build for the actual ubuntu release utopic unicorn? thanks, Norbert

Dec. 1, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Video Tutorial - Github for Pharo using Sourcetree

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 01 Dec 2014, at 19:11, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Dale, > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote: > Eliot, > > If we remove the meta data from the FileTree repo, then it will be necessary to use the `adopt` command to restore the proper version history before interchanging copying to an mcz repo or trying to merge with an mcz package ... > > `adopt` is not an ideal solution, which is exactly why I've (stubbornly) maintained the monticello meta data ... > > So *please* continue to be stubborn :-) but this is a limitation of gitfiletree. real git integration (using libgit2) should be perfectly capable of reconstruct history without any metadata. also, in a point (not now, but eventually)â¦ we will need to drop something. The idea of keeping anything ad eternum just does not scales. Esteban > > My statement about "as the community begins to use git-based repos as their primary repository" includes a broad definition of community, in my mind:) > > +1 > > Cross-platform package portability has always been one of my primary concerns and I do share your concern that it's a big step to remove the monticello meta data from FileTree (again it's why I haven't done so yet) ... > > So far this is a bridge that doesn't need to be crossed, but when it becomes time to cross it, there might be other options that can be applied (perhaps an ancestry can be synthesized from the git meta data?) exactly. > > Which would be reasonable, but it needs to be there. And thanks. > > Dale > > > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com <mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi Dale, > > On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 7:51 AM, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com <mailto:kilon.alios@gmail.com>> wrote: >> So far all I knew that using git for binary files was a no go, doable but not recommended. Thus I found strange that filetree uses binary files. >> >> >> Well the files are text files, but because the text represents structured data, the line-based auto-merge used by git is not correct ... >> >> The monticello version files have been included in FileTree to make it possible to move the packages seamlessly between Filetree-based repositories and mcz based repositories ... without that meta data, once you move a package to FileTree it could not be moved back into an mcz repository without losing all of the package history. >> >> When I was first introducing FileTree, I thought it was important that folks be able to test out the git waters without making an "irreversible commitment to git." Even today I find myself needing to move packages back and forth between git and mcz repositories, so Thierry's merge-tools has made it possible for me to have my cake and eat it too. >> >> I have been threatening to remove the monticello meta data from FileTree (or at least make it optional), but I just haven't had the time or motivation to do so ... again Thierry's merge-tool means that I never have to deal with a manual merge of the version file, so for me I never have to think about it ... >> >> As the tool sets for supporting git improve and as the community begins to use git-based repos as their primary repository, it will make sense to remove the monticello meta data from FileTree ... > > Will that mean that packages will still be able to be interchanged with Monticello? If yes, will that mean that packages will still be able to be merged with Monticello? > >> Dale > > > > > -- > best, > Eliot

Dec. 1, 2014