January 2016 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[pharo-project/pharo-core]

by GitHub

Branch: refs/tags/50545 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core

Jan. 24, 2016

[pharo-project/pharo-core] e29965: 50545

by GitHub

Branch: refs/heads/5.0 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core Commit: e29965eecb03b444a689c55aeb098e9f0fbe09ad https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/e29965eecb03b444a689c55a… Author: Jenkins Build Server <board(a)pharo-project.org> Date: 2016-01-24 (Sun, 24 Jan 2016) Changed paths: A Deprecated50.package/extension/Delay/instance/waitOtherwise_.st R Kernel.package/Delay.class/instance/delaying/waitOtherwise_.st M Kernel.package/Delay.class/instance/private/schedule.st M Kernel.package/DelayExperimentalCourageousScheduler.class/instance/low priority processes/schedule_.st M Kernel.package/DelayExperimentalSemaphoreScheduler.class/instance/low priority processes/schedule_.st M Kernel.package/DelayExperimentalSpinScheduler.class/instance/low priority processes/schedule_.st M Kernel.package/DelayMicrosecondScheduler.class/instance/low priority processes/schedule_.st M Kernel.package/DelayMillisecondScheduler.class/instance/low priority processes/schedule_.st M Kernel.package/DelayNullScheduler.class/instance/low priority processes/schedule_.st A Reflectivity.package/RFReification.class/instance/generate/genForRBArgumentNode.st R ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script50544.st A ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script50545.st R ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update50544.st A ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update50545.st M ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/public/commentForCurrentUpdate.st Log Message: ----------- 50545 17296 Remove Delay>>otherwise: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17296 17453 add #genForRBArgumentNode https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17453 http://files.pharo.org/image/50/50545.zip

Jan. 24, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Fix To Include

by Marcus Denker

> On 24 Jan 2016, at 17:07, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > Hi ben >> Is something stuck with integration by the CI monkey. > > Sometimes yes. Sometimes tests randomly failed on windows or something like that :) >> I thought this automatically picked and integrated any Fix To Include status slices. >> But these two cases were marked Fix To include a fews days ago, and >> have not yet been integrated. > No we (either esteban marcus and me look at the code) at least I try to browse the code, > and click on a button. >> Case 17296 --> Fix To Include 2016-01-21 22:29 >> Case 17435 --> Fix To Include 2016-01-22 16:34 > Fix to include are marked when we do not want that the monkey recheck them to avoid that > they get unttaged for integration. No, for me they are the ones to get integrated next. I always start with them. i never integrate anything that is not âfix to includeâ. I configured my integrator tool to not show my anything else. This way I am sure that I never integrate something wrong by mistake. Marcus

Jan. 24, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Fix To Include

by stepharo

Hi ben > Is something stuck with integration by the CI monkey. Sometimes yes. Sometimes tests randomly failed on windows or something like that :) > I thought this automatically picked and integrated any Fix To Include status slices. > But these two cases were marked Fix To include a fews days ago, and > have not yet been integrated. No we (either esteban marcus and me look at the code) at least I try to browse the code, and click on a button. > Case 17296 --> Fix To Include 2016-01-21 22:29 > Case 17435 --> Fix To Include 2016-01-22 16:34 Fix to include are marked when we do not want that the monkey recheck them to avoid that they get unttaged for integration. When I do an integration session like today for example. I tend to go slowly and proceed with the domain I can understand. So now I will do Case 17296 > > But I see several cases integrated since then didn't pass through Fix > To Include, so I'm curious what the process is. Is it still a manual > pick of items to integrate? Fix to include is just a marker to avoid endless verification of an issue. Now this is not because a fix is reviewed by the monkey that he should be automatically integrated. In addition we pay attention to some fast paths when people need it. Do I answer your questions? Stef > In that case why are the above passed > over? There is no indication on the tracker. > > Case 17429 --> Fix To include 2016-01-22 16:52 > --> Integrated 2016-01-22 21:05 Build 50539 > > Case 17446 --> Fix To Include 2016-01-22 21:40 > --> Integrated 2016-01-22 23:40 Build 50540 > > > Case 17404 --> Fix Reviewed By Monkey 2016-01-24 03:42 > Case 17443 --> Fix Reviewed By Monkey 2016-01-24 04:57 > Case 17457 --> Fix Reviewed By Monkey 2016-01-24 05:03 > --> Integrated 2016-01-24 17:55 Build 50541 > > Case 17450 --> Fix Review Needed 2016-01-24 19:37 > --> Integrated 2016-01-24 17:37 Build 50542 > > Case 17301 --> Fix Reviewed by the Monkey 2016-01-24 20:39 > Case 17384 --> Fix To Include 2016-01-24 16:50 > --> Integrated 2016-01-24 20:39 > >

Jan. 24, 2016

[pharo-project/pharo-core]

by GitHub

Branch: refs/tags/50544 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core

Jan. 24, 2016

[pharo-project/pharo-core] 5d8e29: 50544

by GitHub

Branch: refs/heads/5.0 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core Commit: 5d8e29106a266ef2cff7f53ec5f793e172a82b5d https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/5d8e29106a266ef2cff7f53e… Author: Jenkins Build Server <board(a)pharo-project.org> Date: 2016-01-24 (Sun, 24 Jan 2016) Changed paths: M Kernel.package/ProtocolOrganizer.class/instance/initialization/initialize.st A Kernel.package/ProtocolOrganizer.class/instance/initialization/reset.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/definition.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/accessing/items.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/accessing/lastItem.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/accessing/menuItems.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/construction/addMenuItem_.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/construction/addToggle_target_selector_getStateSelector_enablementSelector_argumentList_.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/copying/veryDeepInner_.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/initialization/initialize.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/menu/addCustomMenuItems_hand_.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/menu/removeStayUpItems.st R Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/submorphs-add%2Fremove/addMorphBack_.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/testing/hasItems.st M Morphic-Base.package/MenuMorph.class/instance/testing/hasSubMenu_.st R ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script50543.st A ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script50544.st R ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update50543.st A ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update50544.st M ScriptLoader50.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/public/commentForCurrentUpdate.st Log Message: ----------- 50544 17423 PopupChoiceDialogWindow keyboard navigation https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17423 17435 ClassOrganisation>>#changeFromString: MNU for empty change https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17435 http://files.pharo.org/image/50/50544.zip

Jan. 24, 2016

Fix To Include

by Ben Coman

Is something stuck with integration by the CI monkey. I thought this automatically picked and integrated any Fix To Include status slices. But these two cases were marked Fix To include a fews days ago, and have not yet been integrated. Case 17296 --> Fix To Include 2016-01-21 22:29 Case 17435 --> Fix To Include 2016-01-22 16:34 But I see several cases integrated since then didn't pass through Fix To Include, so I'm curious what the process is. Is it still a manual pick of items to integrate? In that case why are the above passed over? There is no indication on the tracker. Case 17429 --> Fix To include 2016-01-22 16:52 --> Integrated 2016-01-22 21:05 Build 50539 Case 17446 --> Fix To Include 2016-01-22 21:40 --> Integrated 2016-01-22 23:40 Build 50540 Case 17404 --> Fix Reviewed By Monkey 2016-01-24 03:42 Case 17443 --> Fix Reviewed By Monkey 2016-01-24 04:57 Case 17457 --> Fix Reviewed By Monkey 2016-01-24 05:03 --> Integrated 2016-01-24 17:55 Build 50541 Case 17450 --> Fix Review Needed 2016-01-24 19:37 --> Integrated 2016-01-24 17:37 Build 50542 Case 17301 --> Fix Reviewed by the Monkey 2016-01-24 20:39 Case 17384 --> Fix To Include 2016-01-24 16:50 --> Integrated 2016-01-24 20:39

Jan. 24, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Spur Garbage collection takes 4 times more when loading MSE (WAS: mse loading looks slower :()

by Stephan Eggermont

On 24-01-16 15:34, Vincent BLONDEAU wrote: > Yes, and we have to do several passes to construct the model with references > (so we store a mapping table). > Maybe a collection or two are GCed. Probably a bit more. Before loading, there were 172 instances of SmallDictionary. After loading, 558293, of which 30194 contain something. Stephan

Jan. 24, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Spur Garbage collection takes 4 times more when loading MSE (WAS: mse loading looks slower :()

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 24 Jan 2016, at 16:09, Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote: > > On 24-01-16 15:34, Vincent BLONDEAU wrote: >> Yes, and we have to do several passes to construct the model with references >> (so we store a mapping table). >> Maybe a collection or two are GCed. > > At least a lot of Announcements and Announcers > > Stephan Of course it is good to optimise code (generating too much garbage is a delayed slowdown), but if GC is slower in Spur then that sounds like a regression that has to be studied. Sven

Jan. 24, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Spur Garbage collection takes 4 times more when loading MSE (WAS: mse loading looks slower :()

by Stephan Eggermont

On 24-01-16 15:34, Vincent BLONDEAU wrote: > Yes, and we have to do several passes to construct the model with references > (so we store a mapping table). > Maybe a collection or two are GCed. At least a lot of Announcements and Announcers Stephan

Jan. 24, 2016