March 2015 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] UI Workflows Are Like Snowflakes

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 23 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > stepharo wrote > > Could you stop crying because this is a bit boring? > > Could you address my policy suggestion instead of crying? ;) > > For two of the issues, the change in iteraction was an unwanted side effect. > Both where retracted. > > The third (sender of) happened the following: opening the browser on a single method > was broken for a while, and it tool some effort to fix. While cursing this fact, I thought > that this idea of opening a different tool with no way of knowing beforehand which one > will open was never a good idea and that I always wanted to get rid of it. > > So I changed this to be able to work (the other bug was fixed some weeks later, too), > and was thinking that if people would really not be able to life with that they would tell... > Yours is the first comment about it. > > In general, the idea of "you have to ask and get the ok from the list for every change" > is dangerous... the Smalltalk people are *extremely* conservative. If you ask, the only > answer will be "NO". Smalltalk is perfect. There is nothing to improve. And even the bad > things: people use the for decades. If we want change, it will be hard... > > Such a prejudiced mischaracterisation! Marcus, listen to yourself. Please, look into your heart and rethink this. Maybe it is a bit too strongly formulated, but certain discussions do tend to contain arguments that Marcus is referring too. I recall a discussion some days ago about #withIndexDo: vs #doWithIndex: where the provisory conclusion was 'we cannot change & we'll leave everything like it is' with arguments that referred to history, ANSI and cross-dialect compatibility. And there are many API discussions like that. It must have been a different world 30, 40 years ago when it must have been possible to actually design fundamental API's and have the ability to change it. Pharo exists because we want that back. > Keep in mind that you can find a reason to *not* do something for *anything*. > > > Marcus > > > -- > Marcus Denker -- denker(a)acm.org > http://www.marcusdenker.de > > > > -- > best, > Eliot

March 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] UI Workflows Are Like Snowflakes

by Eliot Miranda

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > In general, the idea of "you have to ask and get the ok from the list for >>> every change" >>> is dangerous... the Smalltalk people are *extremely* conservative. If >>> you ask, the only >>> answer will be "NO". Smalltalk is perfect. There is nothing to improve. >>> And even the bad >>> things: people use the for decades. If we want change, it will be hard... >>> >> >> Such a prejudiced mischaracterisation! Marcus, listen to yourself. >> Please, look into your heart and rethink this. >> >> Yes, sorry... that was formulated far too strong... :-) > But if I look back I sometimes think that it would have been better to try > and fail than to get convinced in a Mailinglist > discussion to not even start... > Yes, I'm sure many, if not all of us know what you mean. But there are naysayers in almost any community /and/ there is a time for caution in almost all software communities. I think Sean's request for careful discussion of UI changes late in the release cycle is sane. We can perhaps all try and be less defensive. But I hope we'll all continue having fun! -- best, Eliot

March 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] QUESTION: Is anybody using zeroconf with Pharo 2.0?

by Dale Henrichs

Marcus, This makes perfect sense to me ... If zeroconf is only used for the supported versions of Pharo that is perfectly fair ... When a version goes off of zeroconf support it would be convenient if one could find the appropriate "eternal download urls" for the image/vm otherwise how would I know? Keep in mind, that I use zeroconf to download for travis-based tests and I don't have a physical disk to look at ... and it is possible that I won't know that a particular version has gone off of zeroncof support until my build fails ... so it would be _convenient_ to be able to lookup the image/vm combo that I need to use... Dale > The thing is that get.pharo.org <http://get.pharo.org> is more than a > download. People will expect that it *works*. And we can not (we > really can not) support all versions > of Pharo. E.g. Spur. Soon we will have a VM that can not run old > images. If we keep get.pharo.org <http://get.pharo.org> for 1.4, > people expect it to work. And we will have > to provide a VM for the old version. Then at some point, this VM will > not work anymore on the then current linux. Then people expect us to > fix that. > > Just downloads is a different thing: this is an archive, use it at > your own risk. > > Marcus

March 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] UI Workflows Are Like Snowflakes

by Marcus Denker

> In general, the idea of "you have to ask and get the ok from the list for >> every change" >> is dangerous... the Smalltalk people are *extremely* conservative. If you >> ask, the only >> answer will be "NO". Smalltalk is perfect. There is nothing to improve. >> And even the bad >> things: people use the for decades. If we want change, it will be hard... >> > > Such a prejudiced mischaracterisation! Marcus, listen to yourself. > Please, look into your heart and rethink this. > > Yes, sorry... that was formulated far too strong... :-) But if I look back I sometimes think that it would have been better to try and fail than to get convinced in a Mailinglist discussion to not even start... Marcus

March 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] QUESTION: Is anybody using zeroconf with Pharo 2.0?

by Marcus Denker

> On 23 Mar 2015, at 17:43, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > >> On 23 Mar 2015, at 17:38, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote: >> >> I don't need zeroconf for my Pharo1.1 app, either. Alternate download methods would be fine. >> >> I continue to support Metacello on all of the older versions of Pharo and I do use zeroconf there, but if there is an alternate download mechanism then I can use that for testing â¦ >> > Download will be available eternally: > > http://files.pharo.org/image/ <http://files.pharo.org/image/> > http://files.pharo.org/vm/ <http://files.pharo.org/vm/> > The thing is that get.pharo.org <http://get.pharo.org/> is more than a download. People will expect that it *works*. And we can not (we really can not) support all versions of Pharo. E.g. Spur. Soon we will have a VM that can not run old images. If we keep get.pharo.org <http://get.pharo.org/> for 1.4, people expect it to work. And we will have to provide a VM for the old version. Then at some point, this VM will not work anymore on the then current linux. Then people expect us to fix that. Just downloads is a different thing: this is an archive, use it at your own risk. Marcus

March 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] UI Workflows Are Like Snowflakes

by Eliot Miranda

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> > wrote: > >> stepharo wrote >> > Could you stop crying because this is a bit boring? >> >> Could you address my policy suggestion instead of crying? ;) > > > For two of the issues, the change in iteraction was an unwanted side > effect. > Both where retracted. > > The third (sender of) happened the following: opening the browser on a > single method > was broken for a while, and it tool some effort to fix. While cursing this > fact, I thought > that this idea of opening a different tool with no way of knowing > beforehand which one > will open was never a good idea and that I always wanted to get rid of it. > > So I changed this to be able to work (the other bug was fixed some weeks > later, too), > and was thinking that if people would really not be able to life with that > they would tell... > Yours is the first comment about it. > > In general, the idea of "you have to ask and get the ok from the list for > every change" > is dangerous... the Smalltalk people are *extremely* conservative. If you > ask, the only > answer will be "NO". Smalltalk is perfect. There is nothing to improve. > And even the bad > things: people use the for decades. If we want change, it will be hard... > Such a prejudiced mischaracterisation! Marcus, listen to yourself. Please, look into your heart and rethink this. > > Keep in mind that you can find a reason to *not* do something for > *anything*. > > > Marcus > > > -- > Marcus Denker -- denker(a)acm.org > http://www.marcusdenker.de > -- best, Eliot

March 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] QUESTION: Is anybody using zeroconf with Pharo 2.0?

by Marcus Denker

> On 23 Mar 2015, at 17:38, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: > > I don't need zeroconf for my Pharo1.1 app, either. Alternate download methods would be fine. > > I continue to support Metacello on all of the older versions of Pharo and I do use zeroconf there, but if there is an alternate download mechanism then I can use that for testing â¦ > Download will be available eternally: http://files.pharo.org/image/ <http://files.pharo.org/image/> http://files.pharo.org/vm/ <http://files.pharo.org/vm/> Marcus

March 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] QUESTION: Is anybody using zeroconf with Pharo 2.0?

by Dale Henrichs

Marcus, Frozen and downloadable is absolutely fair and not unexpected ... It would be convenient if zeroconf continued to work for the frozen products, but if that isn't practical for you then I can live with that...as long as I can continue to download for testing of Metacello on travis:) Dale On 3/23/15 1:24 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: > >> On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:17, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com >> <mailto:tudor@tudorgirba.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:maxleske@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> > On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:06, Esteban Lorenzano >> <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:56, Dale Henrichs >> <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com >> <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Damien, >> >> >> >> I'm using zeroconf for Pharo 1.2, 1.4 and 2.0 ... I still test >> Metacello against Pharo1.1 ... I would use zeroconf with 1.3 but >> there is something funkily different between what is available on >> zeroconf for 1.3 and what actually "works" for for 1.3 >> (https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/30567/PharoCore-1.3-13328.zip) >> > >> > why? I do not think anyone is using Pharo < 2.0 (and not even >> 2.0, with the exception of some legacy apps) >> > this âforever backward compatibilityâ ends up being really >> complicated. >> >> I am actually, Pharo1.1.1, Pharo1.3 and Pharo1.4 (donât judgeâ¦ :) ). >> >> >> I do not judge. I pity :)) >> > > It is ok to use them, but people should not expect that packages and > framework will be updated. > (and this even defeats the purpose: people use old version *becasue > they do not want change*. > > If we update stuff under their feet (Zinc, Metacelloâ¦) this will lead > to exactly what they do not want. > > We should consider old version to be frozen, *including* the > frameworks and tools. > > Marcus

March 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] QUESTION: Is anybody using zeroconf with Pharo 2.0?

by Dale Henrichs

I don't need zeroconf for my Pharo1.1 app, either. Alternate download methods would be fine. I continue to support Metacello on all of the older versions of Pharo and I do use zeroconf there, but if there is an alternate download mechanism then I can use that for testing ... Dale On 3/23/15 1:16 AM, Max Leske wrote: >> On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:06, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:56, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: >>> >>> Damien, >>> >>> I'm using zeroconf for Pharo 1.2, 1.4 and 2.0 ... I still test Metacello against Pharo1.1 ... I would use zeroconf with 1.3 but there is something funkily different between what is available on zeroconf for 1.3 and what actually "works" for for 1.3 (https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/30567/PharoCore-1.3-13328.zip) >> why? I do not think anyone is using Pharo < 2.0 (and not even 2.0, with the exception of some legacy apps) >> this âforever backward compatibilityâ ends up being really complicated. > I am actually, Pharo1.1.1, Pharo1.3 and Pharo1.4 (donât judgeâ¦ :) ). But I donât need the zero conf scripts for those. > >> I want to deprecate zeroconf for, at least, all pharo < 2.0. >> >> why? >> because the scripts right now downloads one unique vm for all images. Which means download of sources V1, V2, V3â¦ and starting next month V4. >> I want to remove at least one of those sources. >> >> Alsoâ¦ the upcoming spur VM will add another level of complexity to zeroconf scripts (because is everything goes smooth, Pharo5 will dispatch with spur, without backward compatibility). So it will be another V5 + the different VMâ¦ >> >> What to do with those scripts? >> >> maybe deprecate the âvmâ part, and replace it for: >> >> /vm1 >> /vm2 >> /vm3 >> /vm4 >> /vmN >> >> â¦ and /vm downloading the latest stable (/vm4, next month) >> >> but thenâ¦ what to do with the >> >> /30+vm >> /40+vm >> >> scripts? >> yesâ¦ they *could* realise link is talking to âconvenient vmâ so it would download /vm3 and /vm4â¦ but Iâm describing the problem, who grows exponentially. >> Keeping âforever compatibilityâ is not good. >> It does not work. >> It does not scale. >> >> Esteban >> >>> Dale >>> >>> On 3/13/15 5:04 AM, Damien Cassou wrote: >>>> Esteban Lorenzano writes: >>>> >>>>> thatâ¦ is someone using it? >>>> I think the pharo-users mailing list is more appropriate >>>> >>> >> >

March 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] QUESTION: Is anybody using zeroconf with Pharo 2.0?

by Dale Henrichs

Did I ask for support? I asked to be able to continue to be able to continue to download older versions of Pharo. If you say no, then you say no. If you intend to cutoff the downloads for older versions of Pharo, then I would ask that you give me a couple of months warning. If you say no, then you say no. The original question was ... "Is anyone using zerconf for Pharo2.0" and I answered your question... I'm not sure that it costs you anything (other than goodwill) by allowing folks to download older versions of Pharo ... Supporting older versions of Pharo is another kettle of fish ... Dale On 3/23/15 9:20 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: >> On 23 Mar 2015, at 17:16, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs(a)gemtalksystems.com> wrote: >> >> I still have production code (GemTools) that runs today in Pharo 1.1 ... >> >> I assume that others also have production code running in older versions of Pharo and Squeak and GemStone so I make sure that Metacello continues to work on those platforms ... >> >> Not everyone has the luxury of having the time to port their entire production catalog to the latest version of Pharo ... >> >> I don't demand that zeroconf support Pharo1.2 as long as there is a way that I can keep downloading Pharo1.2 ... but if you don't intend to support all releases of Pharo on zeroconf, then I will simply start using the alternate long term method in my scripts because I certainly don't want to have to change scripts that are working perfectly fine, because you've decided to drop support for a particular versionâ¦. >> > Even Microsoft does not support ever old version of Windows. How can we? > Wouldnât it get indefinitely expensive? > > Marcus > > >

March 23, 2015