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

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Moose-dev] [ANN] Voronyj Diagram

by Damien Pollet

On 26 August 2014 09:29, Natalia Tymchuk <natalia.tymchuk(a)unikernel.net> wrote: > It is the reason, however I wanted not only draw the diagram as a lot of segments, but to build the polygons and for that I need all that collections. It's not a matter of having many collections, but of repeatedly making copies in nested loops. For instance, in uniqueTriCombiDo: using allButFirst: followed by withIndexDo: can be replaced by to:do: However, I guess the biggest gain would be in avoiding to enumerate potential triangles over the whole point set, since that's combinatorial; for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune%27s_algorithm -- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by phil＠highoctane.be

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 11:22, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:58, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > >> There is another option: work together again. > > > > Is an option, in theory. But doesnât looks like happening any time soon, > sadly :( > > Well, everybody loses by forking. > Sure but for Ben new commits will be GPL. Pull requests included. Basically, we are fucked on that line I'd say. Pharo is a fork and not too bad at that. Sometimes, one needs to throw the baggage out of the train. Right away through the window when the train is going. The less we muddle with this, the more we can refocus again. The key point is to get a new maintainer who is as good as Ben. I mourn the loss and would love to see him back (along with a couple of other people, like Lukas, Adrian, Cami, etc). As a community maybe we can become better at damage control. These were high caliber individuals and contributors. Phil > > Esteban > > > >> > >> On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:56, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > >> > >>> Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. > >>> Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. > >>> > >>> Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo > project. > >>> > >>> Phil > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I > think that this is not a problem. > >>> To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of > Spec since the licence changed. > >>> So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Luc > >>> > >>> > >>> 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich < > serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > >>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker < > marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich < > serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> > wrote: > >>>>>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, > Glamour, > >>>>>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could > arouse > >>>>>> interest from doubtful people. > >>>>>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the > smalltalk > >>>>>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking > on > >>>>>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. > >>>>>> And sometimes they remember that too ... > >>>>>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? > hahaha > >>>>>> ...) > >>>>>> :( > >>>>>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't > >>>>>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? > >>>>>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the > mailing > >>>>>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do > it > >>>>>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or > dependency > >>>>>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on > Bloc ? > >>>>>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to > GPL ? Will > >>>>>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > >>>>> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > >>>>> Smalltalk) > >>>>> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a > potential > >>>>> problem for Pharo. > >>>>> > >>>> GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo > main distribution > >>>> is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > >>>> > >>>> We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > >>>> > >>>> New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part > of the main distribution). > >>>> > >>>> e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL > (it did not have > >>>> a licence when we started to use it). > >>> > >>> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > >>> licencing of spec. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> -- > >>> Serge Stinckwich > >>> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > >>> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > >>> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Esteban Lorenzano

On 26 Aug 2014, at 11:42, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 11:22, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:58, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >>> There is another option: work together again. >> >> Is an option, in theory. But doesnât looks like happening any time soon, sadly :( > > Well, everybody loses by forking. yes, but it was not our decision. Is just the only thing we can do now (well, we could also remove spec from Pharo, thatâs also possible in theory) Esteban > >> Esteban >> >>> >>> On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:56, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: >>> >>>> Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. >>>> Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. >>>> >>>> Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. >>>> To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed. >>>> So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Luc >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: >>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>>>>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, >>>>>>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse >>>>>>> interest from doubtful people. >>>>>>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk >>>>>>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >>>>>>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >>>>>>> And sometimes they remember that too ... >>>>>>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >>>>>>> ...) >>>>>>> :( >>>>>>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >>>>>>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >>>>>>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing >>>>>>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >>>>>>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >>>>>>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >>>>>>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will >>>>>>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT >>>>>> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use >>>>>> Smalltalk) >>>>>> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential >>>>>> problem for Pharo. >>>>>> >>>>> GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution >>>>> is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >>>>> >>>>> We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >>>>> >>>>> New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). >>>>> >>>>> e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have >>>>> a licence when we started to use it). >>>> >>>> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double >>>> licencing of spec. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -- >>>> Serge Stinckwich >>>> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) >>>> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >>>> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 26 Aug 2014, at 11:22, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:58, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> There is another option: work together again. > > Is an option, in theory. But doesnât looks like happening any time soon, sadly :( Well, everybody loses by forking. > Esteban > >> >> On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:56, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: >> >>> Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. >>> Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. >>> >>> Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. >>> To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed. >>> So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: >>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>>>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, >>>>>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse >>>>>> interest from doubtful people. >>>>>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk >>>>>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >>>>>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >>>>>> And sometimes they remember that too ... >>>>>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >>>>>> ...) >>>>>> :( >>>>>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >>>>>> >>>>>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >>>>>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >>>>>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing >>>>>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >>>>>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >>>>>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >>>>>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will >>>>>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT >>>>> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use >>>>> Smalltalk) >>>>> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential >>>>> problem for Pharo. >>>>> >>>> GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution >>>> is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >>>> >>>> We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >>>> >>>> New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). >>>> >>>> e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have >>>> a licence when we started to use it). >>> >>> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double >>> licencing of spec. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -- >>> Serge Stinckwich >>> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) >>> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >>> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by kilon alios

yes and I do keep a close eye on Spec, I will keep trying to experiment with it and see if it fits the way I like to work. For now I dont see how Morphic is a pain in the ass for large UIs but I will have to try building a large UI first. It looks like that I will be building one very soon and being custom is a very important requirement to me. I do understand what you say though, On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > I strongly disagree on Morphic, personally I love using it. It can be >> cleaner but still beats any other GUI I have used in terms of ease of use >> without sacrificing power. Spec on the other hand looks ugly to me , weird >> and very difficult to understand. But maybe its just my opinion and how my >> brain is wired. Afterall Spec has been very popular with Pharo devs so >> definitely is something I keep a close eye on . I really hope Morphic does >> not get removed, at least continue to be distributed as third party >> library.Though thats is unlikely with all the hard work of cleaning it up. >> > > Morphic and Spec address different concerns. > > Building a UI with Morphic alone is what one would use to do something > very custom (like a game for example). > > Now, creating a larger UI that way is definitely going to be super pain in > the assets. > > That's where Spec does fit. Of course at this point in time, the > underlying Morphic widgets are quite complicated and sometimes behave in > strange ways (try right clicks on the dev tools in unexpected areas...). > > It takes a while to get used to but it works well. > http://spec.st/docs/home/ > > I also wouldn't want Morphic to be removed, but definitely would like to > see it cleaned up in some areas. What I am not sure about is how much of an > external library we will depend on. One key thing in Morphic is that one > can learn a lot by looking inside (and solve problems), something which > will maybe not be there with a new version. > > Phil > > > > >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, >>> Glamour, Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could >>> arouse interest from doubtful people. >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the >>> smalltalk system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people >>> sticking on dotNet, Delphi or C++. >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >>> ...) >>> :( >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >>> >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the >>> mailing list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do >>> it cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? >>> Will it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? >>> >>> I understand that you are very busy, so no problem if there is no link >>> on existing material, I should survive, >>> just wait a little :) >>> >>> TIA >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Alain >>> >>> Le 24/08/2014 08:03, stepharo a Ã©crit : >>> >>> >>>> On 24/8/14 05:39, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >>>> >>>>> I see GTInspector as a big splash. I guess that if there would be a >>>>> Tool Roadmap, it would be focused on GTInspector. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not necessarily. >>>> No time to explain sorry but else I would not improve morphic because >>>> bloc is coming and parallel actions are important. >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Esteban Lorenzano

On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:58, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > There is another option: work together again. Is an option, in theory. But doesnât looks like happening any time soon, sadly :( Esteban > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:56, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > >> Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. >> Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. >> >> Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. >> >> Phil >> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. >> To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed. >> So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Luc >> >> >> 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>> >>> On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, >>>>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse >>>>> interest from doubtful people. >>>>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk >>>>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >>>>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >>>>> And sometimes they remember that too ... >>>>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >>>>> ...) >>>>> :( >>>>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >>>>> >>>>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >>>>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >>>>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing >>>>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >>>>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >>>>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >>>>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will >>>>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? >>>> >>>> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT >>>> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use >>>> Smalltalk) >>>> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential >>>> problem for Pharo. >>>> >>> GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution >>> is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >>> >>> We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >>> >>> New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). >>> >>> e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have >>> a licence when we started to use it). >> >> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double >> licencing of spec. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) >> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ >> >> >> > >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Esteban Lorenzano

ours is already part of the pharo core. we should save the corresponding packages in Pharo/Spec project. Esteban On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:56, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. > Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. > > Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. > > Phil > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. > To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed. > So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. > > Cheers, > > Luc > > > 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: > >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, > >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse > >>> interest from doubtful people. > >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk > >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on > >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. > >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... > >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha > >>> ...) > >>> :( > >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) > >>> > >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't > >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? > >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing > >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it > >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency > >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? > >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will > >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > >> > >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > >> Smalltalk) > >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential > >> problem for Pharo. > >> > > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution > > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > > > > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > > > > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). > > > > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have > > a licence when we started to use it). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > > Regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > > >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

There is another option: work together again. On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:56, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. > Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. > > Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. > > Phil > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. > To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed. > So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. > > Cheers, > > Luc > > > 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: > >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, > >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse > >>> interest from doubtful people. > >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk > >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on > >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. > >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... > >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha > >>> ...) > >>> :( > >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) > >>> > >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't > >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? > >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing > >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it > >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency > >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? > >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will > >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > >> > >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > >> Smalltalk) > >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential > >> problem for Pharo. > >> > > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution > > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > > > > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > > > > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). > > > > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have > > a licence when we started to use it). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > > Regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > > >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by phil＠highoctane.be

Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. Phil On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I > think that this is not a problem. > To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of > Spec since the licence changed. > So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. > > Cheers, > > Luc > > > 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> >> wrote: >> > >> > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, >> Glamour, >> >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could >> arouse >> >>> interest from doubtful people. >> >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the >> smalltalk >> >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >> >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >> >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... >> >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? >> hahaha >> >>> ...) >> >>> :( >> >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >> >>> >> >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >> >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >> >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the >> mailing >> >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >> >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >> >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on >> Bloc ? >> >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL >> ? Will >> >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? >> >> >> >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT >> >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use >> >> Smalltalk) >> >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential >> >> problem for Pharo. >> >> >> > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo >> main distribution >> > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >> > >> > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >> > >> > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of >> the main distribution). >> > >> > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL >> (it did not have >> > a licence when we started to use it). >> >> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double >> licencing of spec. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) >> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ >> >> >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Failing make a slice

by Marcus Denker

On 26 Aug 2014, at 09:09, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 00:18, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> A slice is nothing more than an empty mcz package with as requirements some other packages, namely the ones that you changed and want to include. I guess that if you take a fresh image and merge in your packages, you can create a new slice over them (provided they are dirty, sometimes this is a bit hard, you could make a trivial change). Make sure to save the slice with a higher version number. >> > > The problem that the bug seems deeperâ¦ I have the impression that âSave Sliceâ does not search all the repos and if the number already exists, increase (like normal slice saving). > Then, when saving, it *saves* the wrong version as it asks the cache âgive me name Xâ, and âname Xâ is already there, and it uses that for upload (or even skips the upload as the > file is already there?). > Even re-saving the slice does not help, as unchanged members are not re-saved with a new name. > > But even if this would work, everything fails as soon as you end up with two MCZ files with the same name (e.g. working in two images offline, or working on a package, save, but then only merge > it *after* you did another change in the main branch that led to the same name). > > Maybe we should really add the hash in the filenameâ¦ I added an issue: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13921/Problem-committing-Slices-duplicate…

Aug. 26, 2014