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

Re: [Pharo-dev] WhatsUp from: 2015-04-20 until: 2015-04-30

by stepharo

Le 20/4/15 21:52, Dmitri Zagidulin a Ã©crit : > I've been: > > - Rewriting/updating the Pharo driver for the Riak NoSQL database, at > https://github.com/SmalltalkZen/phriak. (It needs a tiny bit more > documentation before making a full-on mailing list announcement, though). Cool! > > - Helping out with updating the UPBE book to catch it up with the > Pharo 4.0 release. > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Serge Stinckwich > <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com <mailto:serge.stinckwich@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:09 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr > <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote: > > Hi phil > > > > just that you know what we are doing > > > > - Mathieu Lacatou an intern from Thales should be visiting > the team for > > 10 days to pair program with esteban > > about the OSWindow multi-windowing support > > > > - JB and Merwan are extending the OSWindow touch support, like > > generating scroll events > > > > - JB is working on Woden and adding some shadders for 3D demoes. > > I will have a new guy from Senegal starting to work tomorrow in my lab > on using GPU and Wooden for doing SPH&epidemiological modeling. > How to coordinate all these activities ? > > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > >

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by stepharo

NO NO NO integration in the image. NO external tools to talk to. NO NO NO Change your mindset. ConfigurationBrowser is your friend. One click and load. Or a startup preference. The configurationBrowser could have button: "add to my startupPreference." Stef Le 22/4/15 16:43, Sean P. DeNigris a Ã©crit : > Uko2 wrote >> I am developing a tool called QualityAssistant, which displays current >> critics about your code in SystemBrowser, Inspector and Spotter. > Holy crap - this tool is /Amazing/! It highlights the offending code and > even has a button to fix automatically if possible!!! +1 to integration > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/QualityAssistant-v0-4-tp4821070p4821143.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Integration process in presence of "external" project

by stepharo

> The thing is, if you are not doing it, you're asking someone else to > do it for you. > > So, some of the possibilities are: > > - Decouple a bit upstream from Pharo/main, not merging everything from > there immediately. Wait to see the fixes and changes to stabilize, > then extract and merge. > > - Wait for Pharo/main to pushes fixes to you upstream. So that > Pharo/main has a duty of collecting the changes, making them all in a > nice pack, and send them your way. > > A good thing is to adjust the process so that pushing things back and > forth is easing the task of everybody involved (motivation!). > > For example, if an hypothetical Stef (not the true one :)) is changing > and fixing things in Rubric inside Pharo/main, it will make merging > Rubric newest version harder. Why? As a maintainer of Rubric, you know the system, its current development status. So you can decide when you reconcile with the Pharo version. I would say that Pharo core hackers should not integrate changes in external packages (only in urgence) > So, a good thing would be to make that hypothetical Stef in charge of > merging the new Rubric version as well. If he finds it a pain, then he > will ease his tasks by sending his fixes nicely packaged to the Rubric > maintainer, so that the Rubric manager can merge that with the newest > version and send it back to Pharo/main for integration by our > hypothetical Stef :) > > However, it would be allways possible for an external project to make > it easier to fix in their project directly than in Pharo/main, but for > that they need to be very reactive (make sure that fixes are > propagated back very fast in Pharo/main) and make the process as easy > as possible for an external contributor... I do not think that putting the stress on external projects to merge fast is good. Because you can be in the middle of something. Of course with a correct branch it can be simpler but we do not have such tool right now. > > Note that, in such a process, having good tools count. This is one of > the reasons for using places like bitbucket or github: they do really > support that kind of process (pull requests, branches, issues, > server-based merge and CI check, etc...). We could recreate that with > http repositories, but with a significant amount of work. > > Regards, > > Thierry > >> >> Cheers, >> Andrei >> >> >> Stef >> >> >> > > >

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Integration process in presence of "external" project

by stepharo

> > Alternate process > - we do a fix we publish it in Pharo and yes this touches > Rubric and > - we integrate it in Pharo head > - then the guy from rubric merge in their trunk when they want. > it should be part of the their process to merge always > with pharo trunk > - At that point they can report a problem > - then they produce at their speed a new configuration > - then we integrate when ready their change > > > This kind of process will be a pain for those that have to merge the > changes back to their repos. > I did this for a while when I was synching the debugger repo with > Pharo and even if I only had to merge maybe one slice a day it was > kind of annoying. Andrei If we do a change that touch your project you will have to produce a configuration and merge the change anyway. Do not expect me to know what is the head of your project and what I should know. You know your project so you merge the changes we propose. Then you control the speed at which you want to release. Else I will create stupid configuration (in the sense that may be I will break something without even knowing it) and you will have to merge anyway the configurations and the package. Do not dream there is no such alternative. We should go fast to change some structural aspects and avoid to have changes that touch external packages but there is no magic Stef

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Integration process in presence of "external" project

by stepharo

andrei You talk about releasing. I talk about changes that should be done on a system while people are not active. Stef Le 22/4/15 15:29, Andrei Chis a Ã©crit : > In all new tools that we did we tried to have only 2-3 packages and > use tags to organize classes in a packaged (GT-* has 9 packages for 3 > projects). > This allows for very simple configurations with clear dependencies. > Glamour has more packages (17) but those should also be reduced, as we > do not need such a low level of granularity. > > Given that support for working with multiple nested configuration is > not great we can merge all GT-* projects into one configuration. > I would still like to have different configurations for Glamour and > Rubric as they are separate projects. > So we can have just three configurations (each one for a separate > project that can be released independent of the others): > > ConfigurationOfGToolkitCore > ----> ConfigurationOfGlamourCore > ---------> ConfigurationOfRubric > > This would make releasing a new version easier with the current > support from versioner. > Releasing a version for all three configurations at once would still > require some manual updating of versions, but that's a less frequent > use-case. > > Cheers, > Andrei > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Esteban Lorenzano > <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: > > exactly. > what we need in the long term is a complete better integration > process. > I dream to have a git pharo project with submodules and pull requests. > > Slowly the tools are coming, but this will take time to implement. > In the mean time, we need to do all the steps we can to allow us > to achieve the modularisation goal. > Even if they look not easy because we are still building it, or > too used to previous ways of doing it. > > Esteban > > > On 22 Apr 2015, at 12:15, Pavel Krivanek > <pavel.krivanek(a)gmail.com <mailto:pavel.krivanek@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > And do not forget that with better Pharo modularization it will > start > > to be a problem on more lower level. When eg. Morphic will be an > > "exteranal" Pharo package. > > > > -- Pavel > > > > 2015-04-22 12:03 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano > <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>: > >> > >> On 22 Apr 2015, at 10:21, Andrei Chis > <chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com <mailto:chisvasileandrei@gmail.com>> > wrote: > >> > >> But this only works for releasing simple configurations that do > not depend > >> on other configurations. > >> This would work for rubric, for example, but not for other > configurations we > >> have in gtools. > >> > >> > >> then you have two options: > >> > >> 1) you rewrite your configurations to not need nested > configurations. This > >> is not recommendable in huge projects like Seaside, but things > like GTools > >> are easily (I did a quick check and your 3 configurations have > in total 7 > >> packagesâ¦ would not be a problem to have them without nesting > projects and > >> just using the packages). In fact, this is how Dale recommends > using > >> configurations (if I understood him right). > >> 2) we enhance the tools to also allow the commit of nested > packages. > >> > >> I think both approaches needs to be done: you donât need > unnecessary > >> complexity in your configurations and we need to add some > nesting support to > >> commit new version. > >> > >> What is not admisible, IMO, is to do something that is wrong > just because it > >> looks easier in the short term (and I say âin short termâ > because what looks > >> easier now will generate a lot of problems in the future). > >> > >> cheers, > >> Esteban > > > > >

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Integration process in presence of "external" project

by stepharo

Le 22/4/15 13:21, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > exactly. > what we need in the long term is a complete better integration process. > I dream to have a git pharo project with submodules and pull requests. > > Slowly the tools are coming, but this will take time to implement. > In the mean time, we need to do all the steps we can to allow us to achieve the modularisation goal. > Even if they look not easy because we are still building it, or too used to previous ways of doing it. This is ok for me but I will not work on this condition. I will just frustrate too much. Just waiting that somebody somewhere is integrating a stupid change so that I can work. Because there are moments where I can work and other not. I will accomodate about this and work on other projects than Pharo. Stef

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Integration process in presence of "external" project

by stepharo

Le 22/4/15 13:01, Guillermo Polito a Ã©crit : > Well, I agree with Esteban and Thierry in the fact that making our > lives easier to manage now by pushing changes into the Pharo/main > branch will make things harder in the long run. Yes but you see when you clean the architecture and the dependencies then after you can change not before. At least I'm not Toyota (if you know the story). My time is too limited. > > I think we can see this as a case of two dependent configurations > > ConfigurationOfPharo (which does not exist but as the ad-hoc list of > packages in Pharo/main) > > ConfigurationOfRubric => depends on ConfigurationOfPharo > > Stef, I'd manage it like this: > > - push the change we have into rubric > - open an issue number X asking for the integration of rubric with > that feature > - open an issue Y that depends on X with the other slice of changes > > And here the main problem that we will have is that if we do not > integrate quickly these fixes, then slices can age and become not valid. This is ok for me so I will not work on anything during the summer. Because when people are on vacation what do we do? Busy polling? Play magic? > > Alternatively, we can do it in several steps, avoiding the dependency: > > - push the change into rubric > - push the part of the change into pharo that does not break the > current version of rubric (avoid the renames/removals of methods) > - when both are integrated we do the last step that integrates the > last set of changes And die in deadlock? > El miÃ©., 22 de abr. de 2015 a la(s) 11:15 a. m., Thierry Goubier > <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com <mailto:thierry.goubier@gmail.com>> escribiÃ³: > > Le 22/04/2015 10:21, Andrei Chis a Ã©crit : > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Esteban Lorenzano > <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com> > > <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > > in fact I just checked and Versioner already does that: > right button > > on monticello over a configuration gives you a: âcreate > > development/release versionâ. > > So only thing we need is to use the tools we already created :) > > > > > > But this only works for releasing simple configurations that do not > > depend on other configurations. > > This would work for rubric, for example, but not for other > > configurations we have in gtools. > > I believe GTTools is certainly a poster case for trying to make that > process simpler. > > I would really be interested to see how a combination of simpler > configurations, baselines, tags and branches would look. A kind of > hierarchical modeling where you only have configurations at the > moment. > > Thierry > > > > > > Cheers, > > Andrei > > > > > > > On 22 Apr 2015, at 08:50, Esteban Lorenzano > <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com> > > <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > > > > > and btwâ¦ of course I agree repositories need to be added, and > > configurations kept in image. > > > > > > cheers, > > > Esteban > > > > > >> On 22 Apr 2015, at 08:34, Esteban Lorenzano > <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com> > > <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > >> > > >> I disagree with your proposal. > > >> It will be a mess, nobody will merge (because there will > be no > > point on doing it) and we will not move out from a > monolithic system. > > >> What I propose is not an invention, is how big projects > workâ¦ > > what you have to take into account is that any project under the > > Pharo umbrella does not have an owner, but a maintainer. > That means > > if Alan is on vacation or he does not has the time to do the new > > configuration, anyone can doit. > > >> > > >> Yes, it can look slow, but that is because you are too > used to > > the old workflow, and because right now system is not modular. > > >> The method I propose will enhance modularity (while the > older > > will, at least, not help), which means with time, changes > will be > > applied just in one module and not along the full system > like now. > > >> > > >> Of course with proper tools this will be faster, but I > very much > > prefer people telling me âI need thisâ (thatâs why I did the > > integrator app, and modified the monkey to take and validate > > configurations), and we do it, that we abandon our pursuit of > > modularity because is uncomfortable at the beginning. > > >> > > >> We can modify also monticello or versioner (better > monticello > > because everything will be closer, but using versioner API) > to do a > > âsave new versionâ which would be more or less the same as a > slice, > > but for a configuration, and it will: > > >> > > >> - save the packages associated to the configuration > > >> - create a new version > > >> - save the new configuration > > >> > > >> this will not be to much work (I think I can have it in > a couple > > of days), it will help the process (because eventually > everything > > should be managed through configurations (or PPM > configurations), > > and it will allow us to keep a process that is better and > validated.. > > >> > > >> TL;DR: Better enhance the tools than drop the process. > > >> > > >> Esteban > > >> > > >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 07:47, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr > <mailto:stepharo@free.fr> > > <mailto:stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Esteban > > >>> I was thinking about the following this night. > > >>> > > >>> While I understand that we want configuration only it > will slow > > us down like hell. > > >>> > > >>> Example > > >>> with guille we wanted to fix a problem (I do not > remember which > > one) > > >>> we need a change to be done in rubric so we will have to > > publish the change in rubric repo > > >>> - (find it and add it) so the rubric repo should be > there before > > >>> - then one guy of rubric should have a look > > >>> - then merge > > >>> - then publish an issue with a configuration > > >>> - then only then we can work > > >>> => result why do we need sync for me and guille to > continue to > > work??? > > >>> => what if Alain in on vacation? > > >>> we stop working? > > >>> => Remember: We did Pharo especially because people in > squeak > > did not want that we change > > >>> packages. > > >>> > > >>> Alternate process > > >>> - we do a fix we publish it in Pharo and yes this touches > > Rubric and > > >>> - we integrate it in Pharo head > > >>> - then the guy from rubric merge in their trunk when > they want. > > >>> it should be part of the their process to merge always > > with pharo trunk > > >>> - At that point they can report a problem > > >>> - then they produce at their speed a new configuration > > >>> - then we integrate when ready their change > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Stef > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Integration process in presence of "external" project

by stepharo

> in fact I just checked and Versioner already does that: right button on monticello over a configuration gives you a: âcreate development/release versionâ. > So only thing we need is to use the tools we already created :) Well did you try the configurations that other people created with versionner? I will not fix them. Stef > > >> On 22 Apr 2015, at 08:50, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> and btwâ¦ of course I agree repositories need to be added, and configurations kept in image. >> >> cheers, >> Esteban >> >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 08:34, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I disagree with your proposal. >>> It will be a mess, nobody will merge (because there will be no point on doing it) and we will not move out from a monolithic system. >>> What I propose is not an invention, is how big projects workâ¦ what you have to take into account is that any project under the Pharo umbrella does not have an owner, but a maintainer. That means if Alan is on vacation or he does not has the time to do the new configuration, anyone can doit. >>> >>> Yes, it can look slow, but that is because you are too used to the old workflow, and because right now system is not modular. >>> The method I propose will enhance modularity (while the older will, at least, not help), which means with time, changes will be applied just in one module and not along the full system like now. >>> >>> Of course with proper tools this will be faster, but I very much prefer people telling me âI need thisâ (thatâs why I did the integrator app, and modified the monkey to take and validate configurations), and we do it, that we abandon our pursuit of modularity because is uncomfortable at the beginning. >>> >>> We can modify also monticello or versioner (better monticello because everything will be closer, but using versioner API) to do a âsave new versionâ which would be more or less the same as a slice, but for a configuration, and it will: >>> >>> - save the packages associated to the configuration >>> - create a new version >>> - save the new configuration >>> >>> this will not be to much work (I think I can have it in a couple of days), it will help the process (because eventually everything should be managed through configurations (or PPM configurations), and it will allow us to keep a process that is better and validated.. >>> >>> TL;DR: Better enhance the tools than drop the process. >>> >>> Esteban >>> >>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 07:47, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>> Esteban >>>> I was thinking about the following this night. >>>> >>>> While I understand that we want configuration only it will slow us down like hell. >>>> >>>> Example >>>> with guille we wanted to fix a problem (I do not remember which one) >>>> we need a change to be done in rubric so we will have to publish the change in rubric repo >>>> - (find it and add it) so the rubric repo should be there before >>>> - then one guy of rubric should have a look >>>> - then merge >>>> - then publish an issue with a configuration >>>> - then only then we can work >>>> => result why do we need sync for me and guille to continue to work??? >>>> => what if Alain in on vacation? >>>> we stop working? >>>> => Remember: We did Pharo especially because people in squeak did not want that we change >>>> packages. >>>> >>>> Alternate process >>>> - we do a fix we publish it in Pharo and yes this touches Rubric and >>>> - we integrate it in Pharo head >>>> - then the guy from rubric merge in their trunk when they want. >>>> it should be part of the their process to merge always with pharo trunk >>>> - At that point they can report a problem >>>> - then they produce at their speed a new configuration >>>> - then we integrate when ready their change >>>> >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> > >

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Integration process in presence of "external" project

by stepharo

> and btwâ¦ of course I agree repositories need to be added, and configurations kept in image. So what will happen when I publish a configuration with new package in the repo of XXX where XXX is under dev or under a more recent version. They will have to merge. Because I will only publish to be able to load the code I changed into just the next version of Pharo so that I can continue to work on the other parts of the changes. Stef > > cheers, > Esteban > >> On 22 Apr 2015, at 08:34, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I disagree with your proposal. >> It will be a mess, nobody will merge (because there will be no point on doing it) and we will not move out from a monolithic system. >> What I propose is not an invention, is how big projects workâ¦ what you have to take into account is that any project under the Pharo umbrella does not have an owner, but a maintainer. That means if Alan is on vacation or he does not has the time to do the new configuration, anyone can doit. >> >> Yes, it can look slow, but that is because you are too used to the old workflow, and because right now system is not modular. >> The method I propose will enhance modularity (while the older will, at least, not help), which means with time, changes will be applied just in one module and not along the full system like now. >> >> Of course with proper tools this will be faster, but I very much prefer people telling me âI need thisâ (thatâs why I did the integrator app, and modified the monkey to take and validate configurations), and we do it, that we abandon our pursuit of modularity because is uncomfortable at the beginning. >> >> We can modify also monticello or versioner (better monticello because everything will be closer, but using versioner API) to do a âsave new versionâ which would be more or less the same as a slice, but for a configuration, and it will: >> >> - save the packages associated to the configuration >> - create a new version >> - save the new configuration >> >> this will not be to much work (I think I can have it in a couple of days), it will help the process (because eventually everything should be managed through configurations (or PPM configurations), and it will allow us to keep a process that is better and validated.. >> >> TL;DR: Better enhance the tools than drop the process. >> >> Esteban >> >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 07:47, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> Esteban >>> I was thinking about the following this night. >>> >>> While I understand that we want configuration only it will slow us down like hell. >>> >>> Example >>> with guille we wanted to fix a problem (I do not remember which one) >>> we need a change to be done in rubric so we will have to publish the change in rubric repo >>> - (find it and add it) so the rubric repo should be there before >>> - then one guy of rubric should have a look >>> - then merge >>> - then publish an issue with a configuration >>> - then only then we can work >>> => result why do we need sync for me and guille to continue to work??? >>> => what if Alain in on vacation? >>> we stop working? >>> => Remember: We did Pharo especially because people in squeak did not want that we change >>> packages. >>> >>> Alternate process >>> - we do a fix we publish it in Pharo and yes this touches Rubric and >>> - we integrate it in Pharo head >>> - then the guy from rubric merge in their trunk when they want. >>> it should be part of the their process to merge always with pharo trunk >>> - At that point they can report a problem >>> - then they produce at their speed a new configuration >>> - then we integrate when ready their change >>> >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> > >

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Integration process in presence of "external" project

by stepharo

Ok perfect then I will not work on changes that touch other projects. I suggest also guille not to try and we should focus on something else than in the image. > I disagree with your proposal. > It will be a mess, nobody will merge (because there will be no point on doing it) and we will not move out from a monolithic system. > What I propose is not an invention, is how big projects workâ¦ what you have to take into account is that any project under the Pharo umbrella does not have an owner, but a maintainer. That means if Alan is on vacation or he does not has the time to do the new configuration, anyone can doit. > > Yes, it can look slow, but that is because you are too used to the old workflow, and because right now system is not modular. > The method I propose will enhance modularity (while the older will, at least, not help), which means with time, changes will be applied just in one module and not along the full system like now. Ok I will let you enhance the modularity because my time is more expensive. Then when pharo will be modular I will come back. > > Of course with proper tools this will be faster, but I very much prefer people telling me âI need thisâ (thatâs why I did the integrator app, and modified the monkey to take and validate configurations), and we do it, that we abandon our pursuit of modularity because is uncomfortable at the beginning. You mixed everything. Did I talk about abandon our pursuit of modularity. Now what you are suggesting is that a change that can take 10 min will take several days to be done. From my concentration and energy point of view I will not work under such conditions. May I ask you when is the last time you work on remodularizing Pharo? Because I can say that I got my share with Guille but if Pharo does not respect my time then no problem I will do something else. > > We can modify also monticello or versioner (better monticello because everything will be closer, but using versioner API) to do a âsave new versionâ which would be more or less the same as a slice, but for a configuration, and it will: > > - save the packages associated to the configuration > - create a new version > - save the new configuration And? I will have to - enter the repo of the external project - fight with a configuration of a project that I do not know, - no thanks - or all the external project should work for real with versioner. - But people will have to look anyway at my changes but in addition they will have a potentially incompatible version (that may be they cannot load in there image). > > this will not be to much work (I think I can have it in a couple of days), it will help the process (because eventually everything should be managed through configurations (or PPM configurations), and it will allow us to keep a process that is better and validated.. > > TL;DR: Better enhance the tools than drop the process. Which process? Right now what you are proposing is just slowly the remodularisation from my point of view. Because if we have to wait (and we already faced it) that a change goes in rubric and in the rubric configuration so that we can ***continue*** to work. Then we are dead. Because other projects not under our control depend on rubric and I will not fix any of them. I'm sorry I will not work on tools. So I will work on my home projects. Stef > > Esteban > >> On 22 Apr 2015, at 07:47, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >> Esteban >> I was thinking about the following this night. >> >> While I understand that we want configuration only it will slow us down like hell. >> >> Example >> with guille we wanted to fix a problem (I do not remember which one) >> we need a change to be done in rubric so we will have to publish the change in rubric repo >> - (find it and add it) so the rubric repo should be there before >> - then one guy of rubric should have a look >> - then merge >> - then publish an issue with a configuration >> - then only then we can work >> => result why do we need sync for me and guille to continue to work??? >> => what if Alain in on vacation? >> we stop working? >> => Remember: We did Pharo especially because people in squeak did not want that we change >> packages. >> >> Alternate process >> - we do a fix we publish it in Pharo and yes this touches Rubric and >> - we integrate it in Pharo head >> - then the guy from rubric merge in their trunk when they want. >> it should be part of the their process to merge always with pharo trunk >> - At that point they can report a problem >> - then they produce at their speed a new configuration >> - then we integrate when ready their change >> >> >> Stef >> >> > >

April 22, 2015