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

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Jimmie Houchin

On 04/28/2014 11:12 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: > â¦ more a Smalltalk one using Pharo: > > MountainWest RubyConf 2014 > > Noel Rappin: "But Really, You Should Learn Smalltalkâ > > Smalltalk has mystique. We talk about it more than we use it. It seems like it should be so similar to Ruby. It has similar Object-Oriented structures, it even has blocks. But everything is so slightly different, from the programming environment, to the 1-based arrays, to the simple syntax. Using Smalltalk will make you look at familiar constructs with new eyes. Weâll show you how to get started on Smalltalk, and walk through some sample code. Live coding may be involved. Youâll never look at objects the same way again. > > http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3284-mwrc-but-really-you-should-learn-small… One more thought about Pharo being a Smalltalk. The Pharo Wikipedia page from day one to today has declared Pharo as a Smalltalk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharo A quote from the first entry. """ Pharo is a fork of Squeak, an implementation of the object-oriented, dynamically typed, reflective programming language Smalltalk. """ A quote from the current entry. """ Pharo is an open-source Smalltalk-environment released under the MIT license since 2009. ... Pharo is a fork of Squeak, an open source Smalltalk environment created by the Smalltalk-80 team (Dan Ingalls and Alan Kay). The Pharo team want to develop a modern Smalltalk for companies and software engineering research. """ Smalltalk is mentioned over 20 times. Pharo is listed as being written in Smalltalk. Not being written in Pharo. Also, Smalltalk is the original pure object-oriented language. If Pharo ditches Smalltalk, are we ditching OO also. The only and sole reason for not proudly proclaiming Pharo as Smalltalk is marketing. That type of marketing cuts both ways. We also lose the positive of Smalltalk. We can't undo our history. We are a Smalltalk. We can invent our future. Just as a true Smalltalk should. Smalltalk has baggage. So does Object-Oriented programming. But just because the functional people, the Clojure people flog OO, doesn't mean we abandon that terminology. We embrace OO and we educated people that C++ and Java do not get to be arbiters of defining what OO means. We show them what OO really means. And so we do not let the Smalltalk detractors define us either. I think our new website should proudly reflect that Pharo is a Smalltalk. The Wikipedia page does, and rightly so. I have been a part of the Squeak/Pharo community since the 2000. I still have much to learn. But this much I know. I am happy to be a Smalltalker. I have wandered around much, and I always wander back, because nothing else brings the experience and productivity. Not Python, Ruby, Lua, ... Long live Smalltalk. Jimmie

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] good article on mainstream adoption of programming languages

by Johan Brichau

Eliot, > if possible, next time provide the quora link not the forbes one. forbes is advertising at me :-( OK, but I am not an active Quora user... and it's asking me for a lot of things before I can actually read that article :-/ Now that I have wrestled through it, the next time I will do that :-) cheers Johan

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] good article on mainstream adoption of programming languages

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Johan, On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Johan Brichau <johan(a)inceptive.be> wrote: > Since this discussion often returns on this mailinglist, here is a good > article. > > It focuses on Haskell, but a lot of arguments apply to Smalltalk as well. > > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/29/what-do-you-think-is-impeding-… if possible, next time provide the quora link not the forbes one. forbes is advertising at me :-( -- but thanks! Eliot

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Esteban Lorenzano

Againâ¦ you are missing the point. nobody here doubts Pharo is a Smalltalk. nobody outside our small world believes Smalltalk is alive. And yesâ¦ you can argue all what you want. But you are scratching where it does not itch. We choose not to *market* Pharo as a Smalltalk, because each time someone outside our small world hear about Smalltalk believes that is a long time dead language. No matter how much effort you put into explain that is not true, people will not believe it. And people is always more willing to try something new than something old (except in the case of wines and fine alcohols, of course). Soâ¦ we prefer to track people to our community and let them notice wat WE ALL KNOW: Smalltalk is not dead, and Pharo is a proof of that. Esteban On 30 Apr 2014, at 20:07, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In the Smalltalk heritage. Pharo comes from Smalltalk 80. > > But we don't want to be stuck in 1980. We want Smalltalk 2014. > Smalltalk 80 was modern for 1980. They didn't want to be stuck in 1976. ... > > And Smalltalk isn't unique to this. Is C11 not a C because it is not K&R, or C89, C90 or C99? > Is Python 3.x not Python because it is not fully compatible with Python 2.x which is dominant? > > Pharo wants to be a modern Smalltalk able to empower people in this era to do things that we do in 2014. We need appropriate modularity in the image. We need the image to be clean. We need to learn the lessons we as Smalltalker's have learned in the last 24 years and apply them to Pharo Smalltalk. And I believe that is much of what Pharo is attempting to do. > > Noel in his talk said that Smalltalk doesn't play well with others. And with Pharo it still isn't as easy as in other languages like Python, Ruby, Lua, etc. But with NativeBoost we have a tool which enables us to do much. And NativeBoost isn't finished. I believe when NativeBoost is fully mature and the vm/image has sufficiently changed to enable us. We will have one of the best plays with others well stories. > > I know in the app I am writing, NativeBoost's current condition struggled with my library. It often crashed. This library has to deal with a C Thread. Which is why I am spending my current time studying C. > > Whether or not the Smalltalk Inspired crowd likes it, the moment some else declares that Pharo is a Smalltalk the Smalltalk Inspired marketing is tanked. The cat is out of the bag. > > The Reddit thread demonstrates this. People went to the new website. They read the current marketing and were confused. What is this Pharo thing. And in the thread it comes out that Pharo is a Smalltalk. Lets make that clear up front. Then lets define what it means to be Pharo Smalltalk. > > Here is an unfortunate quote from that thread. > > """ > emaringolo 1 point an hour ago > Pharo is aimed to do serious/business development, and it's been reshaping itself since its conception (several years ago when it forked from Squeak). > It doesn't want to have any backward or "historic" compatibility with other Smalltalks. > You can see its changelogs and the roadmap for future versions to see how it is different, and how it will be different. > """ > > This makes it sound like Pharo wants remove compatibility simply for the sake of not being a Smalltalk. As opposed to what I believe Esteban meant. And yes I understand that English is not his native language, and there are many for whom it is, who still use it poorly. What I believe he meant, is that Pharo will not be constrained by backward compatibility. If a change or feature that is of value to Pharo Smalltalk. That feature will be done even if it means breaking backward compatibility with other Smalltalk 80 based Smalltalks. We are moving forward. But this does not invalidate Pharo being a Smalltalk. As has been stated before, breaking changes happened in Smalltalk 76 and 80. > > Smalltalk has a wonderful heritage. It is not without its issues. However the good of Smalltalk is enormous. Take a look at this chart > http://exploringdata.github.io/vis/programming-languages-influence-network/ > Smalltalk is a big influence in the history of programming. This is something worth being a part of. Be proud of it. > > Pharo needs to define what one vision of a modern Smalltalk is. Let us educate people of what our vision for Pharo Smalltalk is. And guess what folks its 2014. Before long it wont be. And before long the vision of Pharo 2014 will no longer be any more modern than Smalltalk 80. But neither Smalltalk 80 nor Pharo 3.0 constrain what it means to be Smalltalk. Smalltalk inspires vision and inspires people to do things which change the present and the future. Lets build on that heritage and take it forward. What does a modern Smalltalk snapshot 2014 mean. Lets educate and communicate. Others (non-Smalltalkers) don't get to define what Smalltalk is. We do. > > Let us learn from them what they think Smalltalk is. Where they are wrong, educate them. Where they are right and we have an issue. Let's learn a lesson and improve our Smalltalk. > > Computer science/art is young. This is a journey. Lets make it a good one. > > Jimmie > > > > On 04/30/2014 11:12 AM, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: >> Pharo := Smalltalk ++ >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 04/28/2014 11:12 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: >> â¦ more a Smalltalk one using Pharo: >> >> MountainWest RubyConf 2014 >> >> Noel Rappin: "But Really, You Should Learn Smalltalkâ >> >> Smalltalk has mystique. We talk about it more than we use it. It seems like it should be so similar to Ruby. It has similar Object-Oriented structures, it even has blocks. But everything is so slightly different, from the programming environment, to the 1-based arrays, to the simple syntax. Using Smalltalk will make you look at familiar constructs with new eyes. Weâll show you how to get started on Smalltalk, and walk through some sample code. Live coding may be involved. Youâll never look at objects the same way again. >> >> http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3284-mwrc-but-really-you-should-learn-small… >> >> In this thread and many others there is this debate as to whether Pharo is a Smalltalk or is Smalltalk Inspired. >> >> I find the Smalltalk Inspired arguments to be unpersuasive. To be Smalltalk Inspired is to say that you are not a Smalltalk. It is to say that Pharo is not Smalltalk but inspired by it. >> >> I find that reasoning patently false. >> >> First of all everything in Pharo begins from a Smalltalk image. It comes from Squeak Smalltalk which comes from Apple Smalltalk. etc. >> >> Pharo has an isA relationship with Smalltalk, not an isInspiredBy relationship. It may change and add features, but as has been stated before, Smalltalk isn't a static idea or artifact. It has always been a dynamic live environment in which to change itself into something it believed to be better. By removing features and by growing them. >> >> Smalltalk (an instance of SmalltalkImage), SmalltalkImage, SmalltalkImageTest, SmalltalkEditingState are all part of the Pharo Smalltalk image. >> >> The Pharo image is a Smalltalk image. It says so inside the image itself. >> >> Where are we hosting are source code? Would that be SmalltalkHub? >> Lets see something. >> http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo >> >> Okay, Pharo might be doing things that would break compatibility with other Smalltalks. And that causes some people pain and grief. However that does not make Pharo not a Smalltalk. Was Smalltalk 76 constrained by backward compatibility with Smalltalk 72? Or Smalltalk 80 with either Smalltalk 76 or 72? No! >> >> Is it a requirement of Pharo to be constrained by other Smalltalk implementations in order to still be a Smalltalk. No! >> >> And then there is the argument of the outside worlds perception of Smalltalk. Since when does the perception of the outside world change whether or not Pharo is a Smalltalk? If the outside world changed their mind and decided Smalltalk is wonderful, does Pharo then all of the sudden become a Smalltalk? Ugh! >> >> We are who we are. Our roots are our roots. Pharo should be happy and proud to be a Smalltalk. A Smalltalk that is continuing the heritage of innovation. A Smalltalk that is continuing the heritage of inventing the future. >> >> We have decided to be marketing driven. Marketing is important. But marketing should determine who we are. And we should engage in disingenuous marketing practice trying to hide our roots or who we are. >> >> Why do we things distancing ourselves from Smalltalk advantages us? Just because there are lots of uneducated people who have the wrong idea about Smalltalk. Clojure embraced its Lisp heritage and is thriving. Lisp has every bit as much baggage. >> >> This talk which inspired this thread called Pharo as Smalltalk. He said, Pharo Smalltalk throughout the presentation. So in the mind of the presenter and now in the mind of the audience at the conference and of the video, Pharo is a Smalltalk. So now are we to go about re-educating all these people that Pharo is not a Smalltalk but is rather Smalltalk Inspired? >> >> We don't require the outside world's permission. We don't need their approval. We would like to have a reasonable and sufficient number of them to catch the Pharo Smalltalk vision and become a part of the family. Do we really desire everybody. No. Do we desire those people who are so closed minded that the mention of Smalltalk closes their mind because of their ignorance. I don't think so. >> >> Smalltalk is different. Pharo is Smalltalk and is different. There will be those who don't like it because of the baggage they bring, not the baggage we bring. And that is okay. All of us think different. People need to embrace what empowers them and quit complaining about what empowers somebody else. We need to embrace empowering people who understand Smalltalk not the people who don't get it for whatever reason. Let those people go and be empowered somewhere else. We and they will both be better off. >> >> Feel free to shred and destroy my arguments. I am proud to use Smalltalk. And currently Pharo is the Smalltalk I am choosing to use. Currently I am studying C. A C library is required for my project and in order to use Pharo and use this library, I need sufficient C skills. >> >> My opinion unapologetically. >> >> And if the powers that be who are in charge of Pharo decide that Smalltalk (in name) is baggage and Pharo is not Smalltalk. And that marketing Pharo as Smalltalk is bad. Then please be honest and change all references in the image of Smalltalk to Pharo. Also change SmalltalkHub to PharoHub or SmalltalkInspiredHub. >> >> If if not, be sincere and embrace Pharo Smalltalk. >> >> Long live Smalltalk. >> >> Jimmie >> >> >

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] how can I have a working roassal 3d ?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

The 2D stuff works for me, but there seems to be a problem with the 3D stuff. I hope the Rossal developers can fix this soon, since we're showing off Rossal with the 3.0 release.... On 30 Apr 2014, at 18:53, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I wanted to show some 3D visualization with Pharo to some people (because you know, non IT people are only impressed by robots and 3d, so I cannot show them a compiler). > > On the Pharo 3 release, in the configuration browser, I clicked on Roassal3d then 'Install stable version'. > > Then I was not able to run a single example of R3Example, I always got: > > <Screen Shot 2014-04-30 at 9.51.42 AM.png> > > How can I have an image with Roassal3D working ? > > I would like to try to draw a 3D fractal too (I love fractals). > > Thanks !

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Jimmie Houchin

In the Smalltalk heritage. Pharo comes from Smalltalk 80. But we don't want to be stuck in 1980. We want Smalltalk 2014. Smalltalk 80 was modern for 1980. They didn't want to be stuck in 1976. ... And Smalltalk isn't unique to this. Is C11 not a C because it is not K&R, or C89, C90 or C99? Is Python 3.x not Python because it is not fully compatible with Python 2.x which is dominant? Pharo wants to be a modern Smalltalk able to empower people in this era to do things that we do in 2014. We need appropriate modularity in the image. We need the image to be clean. We need to learn the lessons we as Smalltalker's have learned in the last 24 years and apply them to Pharo Smalltalk. And I believe that is much of what Pharo is attempting to do. Noel in his talk said that Smalltalk doesn't play well with others. And with Pharo it still isn't as easy as in other languages like Python, Ruby, Lua, etc. But with NativeBoost we have a tool which enables us to do much. And NativeBoost isn't finished. I believe when NativeBoost is fully mature and the vm/image has sufficiently changed to enable us. We will have one of the best plays with others well stories. I know in the app I am writing, NativeBoost's current condition struggled with my library. It often crashed. This library has to deal with a C Thread. Which is why I am spending my current time studying C. Whether or not the Smalltalk Inspired crowd likes it, the moment some else declares that Pharo is a Smalltalk the Smalltalk Inspired marketing is tanked. The cat is out of the bag. The Reddit thread demonstrates this. People went to the new website. They read the current marketing and were confused. What is this Pharo thing. And in the thread it comes out that Pharo is a Smalltalk. Lets make that clear up front. Then lets define what it means to be Pharo Smalltalk. Here is an unfortunate quote from that thread. """ emaringolo 1 point an hour ago Pharo is aimed to do serious/business development, and it's been reshaping itself since its conception (several years ago when it forked from Squeak). It doesn't want to have any backward or "historic" compatibility with other Smalltalks. You can see its changelogs and the roadmap for future versions to see how it is different, and how it will be different. """ This makes it sound like Pharo wants remove compatibility simply for the sake of not being a Smalltalk. As opposed to what I believe Esteban meant. And yes I understand that English is not his native language, and there are many for whom it is, who still use it poorly. What I believe he meant, is that Pharo will not be constrained by backward compatibility. If a change or feature that is of value to Pharo Smalltalk. That feature will be done even if it means breaking backward compatibility with other Smalltalk 80 based Smalltalks. We are moving forward. But this does not invalidate Pharo being a Smalltalk. As has been stated before, breaking changes happened in Smalltalk 76 and 80. Smalltalk has a wonderful heritage. It is not without its issues. However the good of Smalltalk is enormous. Take a look at this chart http://exploringdata.github.io/vis/programming-languages-influence-network/ Smalltalk is a big influence in the history of programming. This is something worth being a part of. Be proud of it. Pharo needs to define what one vision of a modern Smalltalk is. Let us educate people of what our vision for Pharo Smalltalk is. And guess what folks its 2014. Before long it wont be. And before long the vision of Pharo 2014 will no longer be any more modern than Smalltalk 80. But neither Smalltalk 80 nor Pharo 3.0 constrain what it means to be Smalltalk. Smalltalk inspires vision and inspires people to do things which change the present and the future. Lets build on that heritage and take it forward. What does a modern Smalltalk snapshot 2014 mean. Lets educate and communicate. Others (non-Smalltalkers) don't get to define what Smalltalk is. We do. Let us learn from them what they think Smalltalk is. Where they are wrong, educate them. Where they are right and we have an issue. Let's learn a lesson and improve our Smalltalk. Computer science/art is young. This is a journey. Lets make it a good one. Jimmie On 04/30/2014 11:12 AM, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > Pharo := Smalltalk ++ > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com > <mailto:jlhouchin@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 04/28/2014 11:12 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > â¦ more a Smalltalk one using Pharo: > > MountainWest RubyConf 2014 > > Noel Rappin: "But Really, You Should Learn Smalltalkâ > > Smalltalk has mystique. We talk about it more than we use it. > It seems like it should be so similar to Ruby. It has similar > Object-Oriented structures, it even has blocks. But everything > is so slightly different, from the programming environment, to > the 1-based arrays, to the simple syntax. Using Smalltalk will > make you look at familiar constructs with new eyes. Weâll show > you how to get started on Smalltalk, and walk through some > sample code. Live coding may be involved. Youâll never look at > objects the same way again. > > http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3284-mwrc-but-really-you-should-learn-small… > > > In this thread and many others there is this debate as to whether > Pharo is a Smalltalk or is Smalltalk Inspired. > > I find the Smalltalk Inspired arguments to be unpersuasive. To be > Smalltalk Inspired is to say that you are not a Smalltalk. It is > to say that Pharo is not Smalltalk but inspired by it. > > I find that reasoning patently false. > > First of all everything in Pharo begins from a Smalltalk image. It > comes from Squeak Smalltalk which comes from Apple Smalltalk. etc. > > Pharo has an isA relationship with Smalltalk, not an isInspiredBy > relationship. It may change and add features, but as has been > stated before, Smalltalk isn't a static idea or artifact. It has > always been a dynamic live environment in which to change itself > into something it believed to be better. By removing features and > by growing them. > > Smalltalk (an instance of SmalltalkImage), SmalltalkImage, > SmalltalkImageTest, SmalltalkEditingState are all part of the > Pharo Smalltalk image. > > The Pharo image is a Smalltalk image. It says so inside the image > itself. > > Where are we hosting are source code? Would that be SmalltalkHub? > Lets see something. > http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo > <http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#%21/%7EPharo> > > Okay, Pharo might be doing things that would break compatibility > with other Smalltalks. And that causes some people pain and grief. > However that does not make Pharo not a Smalltalk. Was Smalltalk 76 > constrained by backward compatibility with Smalltalk 72? Or > Smalltalk 80 with either Smalltalk 76 or 72? No! > > Is it a requirement of Pharo to be constrained by other Smalltalk > implementations in order to still be a Smalltalk. No! > > And then there is the argument of the outside worlds perception of > Smalltalk. Since when does the perception of the outside world > change whether or not Pharo is a Smalltalk? If the outside world > changed their mind and decided Smalltalk is wonderful, does Pharo > then all of the sudden become a Smalltalk? Ugh! > > We are who we are. Our roots are our roots. Pharo should be happy > and proud to be a Smalltalk. A Smalltalk that is continuing the > heritage of innovation. A Smalltalk that is continuing the > heritage of inventing the future. > > We have decided to be marketing driven. Marketing is important. > But marketing should determine who we are. And we should engage in > disingenuous marketing practice trying to hide our roots or who we > are. > > Why do we things distancing ourselves from Smalltalk advantages > us? Just because there are lots of uneducated people who have the > wrong idea about Smalltalk. Clojure embraced its Lisp heritage and > is thriving. Lisp has every bit as much baggage. > > This talk which inspired this thread called Pharo as Smalltalk. He > said, Pharo Smalltalk throughout the presentation. So in the mind > of the presenter and now in the mind of the audience at the > conference and of the video, Pharo is a Smalltalk. So now are we > to go about re-educating all these people that Pharo is not a > Smalltalk but is rather Smalltalk Inspired? > > We don't require the outside world's permission. We don't need > their approval. We would like to have a reasonable and sufficient > number of them to catch the Pharo Smalltalk vision and become a > part of the family. Do we really desire everybody. No. Do we > desire those people who are so closed minded that the mention of > Smalltalk closes their mind because of their ignorance. I don't > think so. > > Smalltalk is different. Pharo is Smalltalk and is different. There > will be those who don't like it because of the baggage they bring, > not the baggage we bring. And that is okay. All of us think > different. People need to embrace what empowers them and quit > complaining about what empowers somebody else. We need to embrace > empowering people who understand Smalltalk not the people who > don't get it for whatever reason. Let those people go and be > empowered somewhere else. We and they will both be better off. > > Feel free to shred and destroy my arguments. I am proud to use > Smalltalk. And currently Pharo is the Smalltalk I am choosing to > use. Currently I am studying C. A C library is required for my > project and in order to use Pharo and use this library, I need > sufficient C skills. > > My opinion unapologetically. > > And if the powers that be who are in charge of Pharo decide that > Smalltalk (in name) is baggage and Pharo is not Smalltalk. And > that marketing Pharo as Smalltalk is bad. Then please be honest > and change all references in the image of Smalltalk to Pharo. Also > change SmalltalkHub to PharoHub or SmalltalkInspiredHub. > > If if not, be sincere and embrace Pharo Smalltalk. > > Long live Smalltalk. > > Jimmie > >

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo 3.0 / Roassal2 / Ubuntu

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

I just tried on Mac OS X and that worked fine, you have to make sure that you use the latest VM I guess. I believe the required libraries come with the VM. But I am an inexperienced user on this area. On 30 Apr 2014, at 19:53, volkert(a)nivoba.de wrote: > Dear all, > > i just downloaded Pharo 3.0 and installed Roassal2 via Configuration Manager (Stable Version). > When trying the "Roassal examples" (from Tool-Menu) i got an red screen. > > Platform Ubuntu 14.04LTS > Pharo3.0 Latest update: #30846 > > Need some help :-) > > BW, > Volkert >

April 30, 2014

good article on mainstream adoption of programming languages

by Johan Brichau

Since this discussion often returns on this mailinglist, here is a good article. It focuses on Haskell, but a lot of arguments apply to Smalltalk as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/29/what-do-you-think-is-impeding-… cheers Johan

April 30, 2014

Pharo 3.0 / Roassal2 / Ubuntu

by volkert＠nivoba.de

Dear all, i just downloaded Pharo 3.0 and installed Roassal2 via Configuration Manager (Stable Version). When trying the "Roassal examples" (from Tool-Menu) i got an red screen. Platform Ubuntu 14.04LTS Pharo3.0 Latest update: #30846 Need some help :-) BW, Volkert

April 30, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [pharo-project/pharo-core]

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Sean, *thank you*. Just to be sure, the requirement is for the email service to be tailorable so that one can ask e.g. for the commit id /and/ the commit comment, or the commit id, commit comment and affected files. Is that what you asked for? On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>wrote: > Sean P. DeNigris wrote > > I've reached out and await their reply. > > From github support: > The pharo-project/pharo-core repository is using the Email Service Hook to > provide notifications on push. The Email Service Hook doesn't currently > allow you to configure which pushes should trigger notifications.Note that > these are not regular GitHub Notifications [1], and that many open source > projects do not use the Email Service Hook for notifications on push, > because of the volume of email generated. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/pharo-project-pharo-core-tp4756985p4757293.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > -- best, Eliot

April 30, 2014