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

Re: [Pharo-dev] SpecDebugger MNU ListModel>>getItems

by stepharo

> In trying to learn the pattern of the existing unit tests for Pillar, > I bumped into a failure of SpecDebugger with at MNU: ListModel>>getItems. > > I took a wild guess at copying NewListModel>>getListItems and came up > with > > ListModel>>getItems > ^ listHolder value > > I don't know if thats even close to right, but at least it stopped > SpecDebugger complaining. I do not know but it should be correct. > Should I open a ticket for that to be looked for Pharo3.1 or Pharo4? yes please do. > > Should Pillar be changed to use NewListModel? > What is the plan going forward for ListModel and NewListModel? It is not clear. NewList is faster but Alain was telling to me that there are some limitations such as the drawing of items. > > cheers -ben > > > > >

May 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] MetaRepoForPharo40

by Norbert Hartl

Am 28.05.2014 um 10:08 schrieb kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > Well I am a big fan of github and git myself. Though I also love smalltalkhub , so far I had no serious issues with it apart from the site going down at times and not being able to browser new projects. > > The thing with public access is that you don't worry about it unless a problem occurs. Which saves time and is less demanding on the maintenance side. I will have to agree that github repo with pull requests would be ideal. None the less , things look that are moving towards a better direction :) > You can have public access in each individual project. Iâm just saying that the configuration of a project is only copied to _the_ pharo software catalog if it isnât broken. So while everyone has public access to a project and there is an automatic build on a CI the configuration will be arrive in the meta repo sooner or later. No one has to do anything. If public access would the best way to go pull requests wouldnât be so prominent. It is a solution to let people easily participate without having access to a repository. Norbert > You just remind me to give gitfiletree another try. > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > There havenât as far as I know. But "I trust everyone. It's the devil inside them I don't trustâ. I really like the workflow that emerged from git and github. If one wants to contribute, he forks project, makes changes and submits a pull request. Then you analyse changes made and either merge them into the project, or not (also pull request can be priorly checked by CI and so on). Now if you have have something completely âopenâ it means that you trust all the world, and I would say that itâs not a good thing to do. Yes, inbox is not Pharo repository. But still. > > Uko > > > On 28 May 2014, at 09:37, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I dont see a big problem not having MetaRepoForPharo4 as public access , its not as if anyone will plant a pharo virus anytime soon and if a mistake is done, its not the end of the world , people can fix it if they find so annoying. Have there been any major issues so far with public access ? >> >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> >> On 28 May 2014, at 09:20, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >> Am 28.05.2014 um 08:47 schrieb Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 28 May 2014, at 03:17, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> is the Meta Repo for Pharo 4 ready to use? >> >>> >> >>> I've configured my jobs in the contribution ci server to run also for Pharo 4. But I can't copy the configuration to the meta repo for Pharo 4 to make it available in the Configuration Browser. >> >>> Maybe some permissions are missing? >> >>> >> >> >> >> Yes, public write access was missingâ¦ I added that for now, but of course the question is: do we really want it to be writable by everyone? >> > >> > No! And I would also want only configs to be put into the meta repo that build green. So basically only the pharo contributions CI should upload configs. But I can see that this might be too much effort and restriction. >> > >> > Norbert >> >> We just need a better infrastructure. Look at ATOM project. 1) contributions are made with pull requests 2) they have a dedicated apm tool for package submission/management. With monticello weâve achieved the best we can. And I guess we donât have enough resources to build and maintain new tools. >> >> Uko >> > >

May 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] MetaRepoForPharo40

by Norbert Hartl

Am 28.05.2014 um 09:37 schrieb kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > I dont see a big problem not having MetaRepoForPharo4 as public access , its not as if anyone will plant a pharo virus anytime soon and if a mistake is done, its not the end of the world , people can fix it if they find so annoying. Have there been any major issues so far with public access ? > I did not speak up for security. I just want to reduce annoying things. Accidental commits, hot fixes that break things, etc. There are a few things that one can do and annoy everyone else. Having a CI server in the middle filters the coarse grained problems that otherwise would be in the meta repo and would annoy people. And who is fixing it then? Norbert > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > > On 28 May 2014, at 09:20, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > > > > > >> Am 28.05.2014 um 08:47 schrieb Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: > >> > >> > >>> On 28 May 2014, at 03:17, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> is the Meta Repo for Pharo 4 ready to use? > >>> > >>> I've configured my jobs in the contribution ci server to run also for Pharo 4. But I can't copy the configuration to the meta repo for Pharo 4 to make it available in the Configuration Browser. > >>> Maybe some permissions are missing? > >>> > >> > >> Yes, public write access was missingâ¦ I added that for now, but of course the question is: do we really want it to be writable by everyone? > > > > No! And I would also want only configs to be put into the meta repo that build green. So basically only the pharo contributions CI should upload configs. But I can see that this might be too much effort and restriction. > > > > Norbert > > We just need a better infrastructure. Look at ATOM project. 1) contributions are made with pull requests 2) they have a dedicated apm tool for package submission/management. With monticello weâve achieved the best we can. And I guess we donât have enough resources to build and maintain new tools. > > Uko >

May 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] MetaRepoForPharo40

by kilon alios

Well I am a big fan of github and git myself. Though I also love smalltalkhub , so far I had no serious issues with it apart from the site going down at times and not being able to browser new projects. The thing with public access is that you don't worry about it unless a problem occurs. Which saves time and is less demanding on the maintenance side. I will have to agree that github repo with pull requests would be ideal. None the less , things look that are moving towards a better direction :) You just remind me to give gitfiletree another try. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com>wrote: > There havenât as far as I know. But "I trust everyone. It's the devil > inside them I don't trustâ. I really like the workflow that emerged from > git and github. If one wants to contribute, he forks project, makes changes > and submits a pull request. Then you analyse changes made and either merge > them into the project, or not (also pull request can be priorly checked by > CI and so on). Now if you have have something completely âopenâ it means > that you trust all the world, and I would say that itâs not a good thing to > do. Yes, inbox is not Pharo repository. But still. > > Uko > > > On 28 May 2014, at 09:37, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I dont see a big problem not having MetaRepoForPharo4 as public access , > its not as if anyone will plant a pharo virus anytime soon and if a mistake > is done, its not the end of the world , people can fix it if they find so > annoying. Have there been any major issues so far with public access ? > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com>wrote: > >> >> On 28 May 2014, at 09:20, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >> Am 28.05.2014 um 08:47 schrieb Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 28 May 2014, at 03:17, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> is the Meta Repo for Pharo 4 ready to use? >> >>> >> >>> I've configured my jobs in the contribution ci server to run also for >> Pharo 4. But I can't copy the configuration to the meta repo for Pharo 4 to >> make it available in the Configuration Browser. >> >>> Maybe some permissions are missing? >> >>> >> >> >> >> Yes, public write access was missingâ¦ I added that for now, but of >> course the question is: do we really want it to be writable by everyone? >> > >> > No! And I would also want only configs to be put into the meta repo >> that build green. So basically only the pharo contributions CI should >> upload configs. But I can see that this might be too much effort and >> restriction. >> > >> > Norbert >> >> We just need a better infrastructure. Look at ATOM project. 1) >> contributions are made with pull requests 2) they have a dedicated apm tool >> for package submission/management. With monticello weâve achieved the best >> we can. And I guess we donât have enough resources to build and maintain >> new tools. >> >> Uko >> > > >

May 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] MetaRepoForPharo40

by Yuriy Tymchuk

There havenât as far as I know. But "I trust everyone. It's the devil inside them I don't trustâ. I really like the workflow that emerged from git and github. If one wants to contribute, he forks project, makes changes and submits a pull request. Then you analyse changes made and either merge them into the project, or not (also pull request can be priorly checked by CI and so on). Now if you have have something completely âopenâ it means that you trust all the world, and I would say that itâs not a good thing to do. Yes, inbox is not Pharo repository. But still. Uko On 28 May 2014, at 09:37, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I dont see a big problem not having MetaRepoForPharo4 as public access , its not as if anyone will plant a pharo virus anytime soon and if a mistake is done, its not the end of the world , people can fix it if they find so annoying. Have there been any major issues so far with public access ? > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > > On 28 May 2014, at 09:20, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > > > > > >> Am 28.05.2014 um 08:47 schrieb Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: > >> > >> > >>> On 28 May 2014, at 03:17, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> is the Meta Repo for Pharo 4 ready to use? > >>> > >>> I've configured my jobs in the contribution ci server to run also for Pharo 4. But I can't copy the configuration to the meta repo for Pharo 4 to make it available in the Configuration Browser. > >>> Maybe some permissions are missing? > >>> > >> > >> Yes, public write access was missingâ¦ I added that for now, but of course the question is: do we really want it to be writable by everyone? > > > > No! And I would also want only configs to be put into the meta repo that build green. So basically only the pharo contributions CI should upload configs. But I can see that this might be too much effort and restriction. > > > > Norbert > > We just need a better infrastructure. Look at ATOM project. 1) contributions are made with pull requests 2) they have a dedicated apm tool for package submission/management. With monticello weâve achieved the best we can. And I guess we donât have enough resources to build and maintain new tools. > > Uko >

May 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] MetaRepoForPharo40

by kilon alios

I dont see a big problem not having MetaRepoForPharo4 as public access , its not as if anyone will plant a pharo virus anytime soon and if a mistake is done, its not the end of the world , people can fix it if they find so annoying. Have there been any major issues so far with public access ? On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com>wrote: > > On 28 May 2014, at 09:20, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > > > > > >> Am 28.05.2014 um 08:47 schrieb Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: > >> > >> > >>> On 28 May 2014, at 03:17, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> is the Meta Repo for Pharo 4 ready to use? > >>> > >>> I've configured my jobs in the contribution ci server to run also for > Pharo 4. But I can't copy the configuration to the meta repo for Pharo 4 to > make it available in the Configuration Browser. > >>> Maybe some permissions are missing? > >>> > >> > >> Yes, public write access was missingâ¦ I added that for now, but of > course the question is: do we really want it to be writable by everyone? > > > > No! And I would also want only configs to be put into the meta repo that > build green. So basically only the pharo contributions CI should upload > configs. But I can see that this might be too much effort and restriction. > > > > Norbert > > We just need a better infrastructure. Look at ATOM project. 1) > contributions are made with pull requests 2) they have a dedicated apm tool > for package submission/management. With monticello weâve achieved the best > we can. And I guess we donât have enough resources to build and maintain > new tools. > > Uko >

May 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] MetaRepoForPharo40

by Yuriy Tymchuk

On 28 May 2014, at 09:20, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > >> Am 28.05.2014 um 08:47 schrieb Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: >> >> >>> On 28 May 2014, at 03:17, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> is the Meta Repo for Pharo 4 ready to use? >>> >>> I've configured my jobs in the contribution ci server to run also for Pharo 4. But I can't copy the configuration to the meta repo for Pharo 4 to make it available in the Configuration Browser. >>> Maybe some permissions are missing? >>> >> >> Yes, public write access was missingâ¦ I added that for now, but of course the question is: do we really want it to be writable by everyone? > > No! And I would also want only configs to be put into the meta repo that build green. So basically only the pharo contributions CI should upload configs. But I can see that this might be too much effort and restriction. > > Norbert We just need a better infrastructure. Look at ATOM project. 1) contributions are made with pull requests 2) they have a dedicated apm tool for package submission/management. With monticello weâve achieved the best we can. And I guess we donât have enough resources to build and maintain new tools. Uko

May 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] MetaRepoForPharo40

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 28.05.2014 um 08:47 schrieb Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: > > >> On 28 May 2014, at 03:17, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> is the Meta Repo for Pharo 4 ready to use? >> >> I've configured my jobs in the contribution ci server to run also for Pharo 4. But I can't copy the configuration to the meta repo for Pharo 4 to make it available in the Configuration Browser. >> Maybe some permissions are missing? >> > > Yes, public write access was missingâ¦ I added that for now, but of course the question is: do we really want it to be writable by everyone? No! And I would also want only configs to be put into the meta repo that build green. So basically only the pharo contributions CI should upload configs. But I can see that this might be too much effort and restriction. Norbert

May 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: String >> #=

by Philippe Marschall

On 28.05.14 03:11, Andres Valloud wrote: > What is going to happen when one compares two general Unicode series of > characters that represent the same string but differ in normalization? > Wouldn't the size test would result in false negatives? Yes but #= is blissfully unaware of normalization in Squeak/Pharo. In fact AFAIK Squeak/Pharo is unaware of normalization. Having a short look at it doesn't even look as if case insensitivity worked in Squeak/Pharo outside of Latin-1 (I could be wrong though). In addition you probably don't want #= to do normalization "because performance". And even if you did you probably still want a fast path for ByteString receiver and ByteString argument in which case #size is safe. Cheers Philippe

May 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] MetaRepoForPharo40

by Marcus Denker

On 28 May 2014, at 03:17, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cotelli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > is the Meta Repo for Pharo 4 ready to use? > > I've configured my jobs in the contribution ci server to run also for Pharo 4. But I can't copy the configuration to the meta repo for Pharo 4 to make it available in the Configuration Browser. > Maybe some permissions are missing? > Yes, public write access was missingâ¦ I added that for now, but of course the question is: do we really want it to be writable by everyone? Marcus

May 28, 2014