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

Re: [Pharo-dev] Problem with gitfiletree numeration

by Thierry Goubier

2016-01-13 14:32 GMT+01:00 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Thierry Goubier < > thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> 2016-01-13 13:56 GMT+01:00 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Thierry Goubier < >>> thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2016-01-13 13:12 GMT+01:00 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com >>>> >: >>>> >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to know how you manage this situation. >>>>> I had my already existing project in shub repo. Last version >>>>> was OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.43. I then created a github repo, >>>>> cloned it, and then with gitfiletree I commit for the first time. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that the commit I did with GitFileTree received this MC >>>>> version: OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1. Normally I would not care. But >>>>> in this case I do care because every in a while I would like to >>>>> move/publish some versions from github to shub. And >>>>> OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 has 2 problems: >>>>> >>>>> 1) It has an older version number but newer contents >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2) It's number is not unique. So if I copy versions created from >>>>> github to shub, they would override those versiones created in shub (like >>>>> the very old OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 from shub) ?? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> How do you normally solve this? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The best is to move all the sthub versions on git, like that, >>>> gitfiletree will number newer versions higher and this will work. >>>> >>>> >>> OK, I got it. So you mean to use a Gofer pull/push operation to move all >>> versions from shub to github, right? >>> >> >> Yes! >> \ >> > > OK, I did that. Problem is I had screwed up the first version. Because now > in gitfiletree repo, the OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 is the "new > one" and not the old from shub. I suspect this could bring problems for > history changes, etc... > > Is there a way I can revert and copy the original > OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 from shub and override the > OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 from gitfiletree? > Yes. You can reset in git to a previous commit, I think it is with git --reset . But this is problematic if it was pushed on github. > > Or...at least a way to remove everything and start fresh with the > fecth/push??? > Yes, but, again, problematic if it was pushed to github. Thierry

Jan. 13, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI

by Esteban Lorenzano

another discussion, for another thread :) > On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:35, Christian Haider <Christian.Haider(a)smalltalked-visuals.com> wrote: > > Namespaces â please. > > Best, Christian > > Von: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] Im Auftrag von Henrik Nergaard > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2016 14:24 > An: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> > Betreff: Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI > > If the prefix is renamed would it be possible to include a delimiter symbol between whatever prefix name and the object name? (for example underscore). Then one could change the how a class is viewed in a simple manner (see attached example). > > > Best regards, > Henrik > > From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org>] On Behalf Of Esteban Lorenzano > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:33 AM > To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI > > So, recapitulation: > > I want to introduce: > > 1) package renaming, from FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI > 2) prefix renaming, from FFI to UFFI (I will not change method prefix, they will remain ffi* so this is maybe a problemâ¦) > 3) method renaming, from ffiLibraryName to ffiLibrary (we didnât talk about this, but Iâm introducing it because is better name :P) > > I *think* #2 can be skipped, but #1 and #3 are a must. > > opinions? > > Esteban > >> On 13 Jan 2016, at 11:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 13 Jan 2016, at 03:46, Ben Coman <btc(a)openInWorld.com <mailto:btc@openinworld.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Le 12/1/16 17:58, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> UFFI reminds me UFO which can be translated like Unified Foreign Objects. >>>> And objects outside image look really like unidentified flying objects. It's just address, blob of bytes and they fly outside smalltalk world >>>> And it has some relation to Alien name. >>>> But maybe it is too much funny name >>> >>> I guess we are considering... >>> >>> Prefix: UFO (shorter) >>> Package: Unified Foreign Objects (longer) >>> >>> Prefix: UFFI (longer) >>> Package: UnifiedFFI (shorter) >>> >>> I like your thinking, but I have mixed feelings. Name is cool. The >>> shorter prefix may be a benefit (though the "I" doesn't add much). >>> But it implies more semantics as an external "object" than external >>> blobs of memory (for example) for C libraries. >>> I like "Unified" because it brings together parts of several >>> implementations (if I understand correctly) and fixes a point of >>> divergence at the VM level making it harder for limited resources to >>> collaborate there. >>> So in the end I think I prefer Unified. >> >> yes, I suppose you are right. >> but I was not considering changing prefix from FFI to UFFI, just repackaging as UnifiedFFI :P >> >> nowâ¦ probably I will do it (not many changes to adapt and probably better for understanding in the long way). >> >> >>> >>> cheers -ben >>> >>> P.S. As I understand it, NativeBoost performs a bit better than >>> UnifiedFFI, but it hindered cross-architecture compatibility - but >>> UnifiedFFI essentially keeps the NativeBoost syntax - so I wonder if >>> its technically feasible for NativeBoost to become a plug-in backend >>> for UnifiedFFI, that could be used is special circumstances that >>> super-performance is required only on supported platforms? >> >> actually (though I do not test it since a couple of months) it should be more or less compatibleâ¦ it was at the beginning, then I made some changesâ¦ >> what is not compatible anymore is the vm who needs to be changed to use executable memory. >> >> Alsoâ¦ yes, NativeBoost is faster (callouts, not callbacks) because you cannot compete with ASM, but you can compite in activation time and optimised codeâ¦ so who knows, in the future that advantage can not exist anymore. >> >> cheers, >> Esteban >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 2016-01-12 16:55 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> People has pointed (and they are right) that the name of the new FFI >>>>> front-end is misleading. >>>>> So yesterday I was talking with Stef and we think UnifiedFFI (or UFFI, for >>>>> short) is a better nameâ¦ and to keep packages prox. to regular FFI I was >>>>> thinking on rename FFI-NB packages to FFI-Unifiedâ¦ but maybe is better just >>>>> to rename them as UFFI or UnifiedFFIâ¦ >>>>> what do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Esteban

Jan. 13, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI

by Esteban Lorenzano

not really, underscores are too âanti-Smalltalkâ. > On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:23, Henrik Nergaard <henrik.nergaard(a)uia.no> wrote: > > If the prefix is renamed would it be possible to include a delimiter symbol between whatever prefix name and the object name? (for example underscore). Then one could change the how a class is viewed in a simple manner (see attached example). > > > Best regards, > Henrik > > From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Esteban Lorenzano > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:33 AM > To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI > > So, recapitulation: > > I want to introduce: > > 1) package renaming, from FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI > 2) prefix renaming, from FFI to UFFI (I will not change method prefix, they will remain ffi* so this is maybe a problemâ¦) > 3) method renaming, from ffiLibraryName to ffiLibrary (we didnât talk about this, but Iâm introducing it because is better name :P) > > I *think* #2 can be skipped, but #1 and #3 are a must. > > opinions? > > Esteban > > On 13 Jan 2016, at 11:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 13 Jan 2016, at 03:46, Ben Coman <btc(a)openInWorld.com <mailto:btc@openinworld.com>> wrote: > > > Le 12/1/16 17:58, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : > > Hi > > UFFI reminds me UFO which can be translated like Unified Foreign Objects. > And objects outside image look really like unidentified flying objects. It's just address, blob of bytes and they fly outside smalltalk world > And it has some relation to Alien name. > But maybe it is too much funny name > > I guess we are considering... > > Prefix: UFO (shorter) > Package: Unified Foreign Objects (longer) > > Prefix: UFFI (longer) > Package: UnifiedFFI (shorter) > > I like your thinking, but I have mixed feelings. Name is cool. The > shorter prefix may be a benefit (though the "I" doesn't add much). > But it implies more semantics as an external "object" than external > blobs of memory (for example) for C libraries. > I like "Unified" because it brings together parts of several > implementations (if I understand correctly) and fixes a point of > divergence at the VM level making it harder for limited resources to > collaborate there. > So in the end I think I prefer Unified. > > yes, I suppose you are right. > but I was not considering changing prefix from FFI to UFFI, just repackaging as UnifiedFFI :P > > nowâ¦ probably I will do it (not many changes to adapt and probably better for understanding in the long way). > > > > cheers -ben > > P.S. As I understand it, NativeBoost performs a bit better than > UnifiedFFI, but it hindered cross-architecture compatibility - but > UnifiedFFI essentially keeps the NativeBoost syntax - so I wonder if > its technically feasible for NativeBoost to become a plug-in backend > for UnifiedFFI, that could be used is special circumstances that > super-performance is required only on supported platforms? > > actually (though I do not test it since a couple of months) it should be more or less compatibleâ¦ it was at the beginning, then I made some changesâ¦ > what is not compatible anymore is the vm who needs to be changed to use executable memory. > > Alsoâ¦ yes, NativeBoost is faster (callouts, not callbacks) because you cannot compete with ASM, but you can compite in activation time and optimised codeâ¦ so who knows, in the future that advantage can not exist anymore. > > cheers, > Esteban > > > > > > > > 2016-01-12 16:55 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>: > > > Hi, > > People has pointed (and they are right) that the name of the new FFI > front-end is misleading. > So yesterday I was talking with Stef and we think UnifiedFFI (or UFFI, for > short) is a better nameâ¦ and to keep packages prox. to regular FFI I was > thinking on rename FFI-NB packages to FFI-Unifiedâ¦ but maybe is better just > to rename them as UFFI or UnifiedFFIâ¦ > what do you think? > > Esteban > > <example.PNG>

Jan. 13, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI

by Christian Haider

Namespaces â please. Best, Christian Von: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] Im Auftrag von Henrik Nergaard Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2016 14:24 An: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> Betreff: Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI If the prefix is renamed would it be possible to include a delimiter symbol between whatever prefix name and the object name? (for example underscore). Then one could change the how a class is viewed in a simple manner (see attached example). Best regards, Henrik From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Esteban Lorenzano Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:33 AM To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI So, recapitulation: I want to introduce: 1) package renaming, from FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI 2) prefix renaming, from FFI to UFFI (I will not change method prefix, they will remain ffi* so this is maybe a problemâ¦) 3) method renaming, from ffiLibraryName to ffiLibrary (we didnât talk about this, but Iâm introducing it because is better name :P) I *think* #2 can be skipped, but #1 and #3 are a must. opinions? Esteban On 13 Jan 2016, at 11:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com> > wrote: On 13 Jan 2016, at 03:46, Ben Coman <btc(a)openInWorld.com <mailto:btc@openinworld.com> > wrote: Le 12/1/16 17:58, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : Hi UFFI reminds me UFO which can be translated like Unified Foreign Objects. And objects outside image look really like unidentified flying objects. It's just address, blob of bytes and they fly outside smalltalk world And it has some relation to Alien name. But maybe it is too much funny name I guess we are considering... Prefix: UFO (shorter) Package: Unified Foreign Objects (longer) Prefix: UFFI (longer) Package: UnifiedFFI (shorter) I like your thinking, but I have mixed feelings. Name is cool. The shorter prefix may be a benefit (though the "I" doesn't add much). But it implies more semantics as an external "object" than external blobs of memory (for example) for C libraries. I like "Unified" because it brings together parts of several implementations (if I understand correctly) and fixes a point of divergence at the VM level making it harder for limited resources to collaborate there. So in the end I think I prefer Unified. yes, I suppose you are right. but I was not considering changing prefix from FFI to UFFI, just repackaging as UnifiedFFI :P nowâ¦ probably I will do it (not many changes to adapt and probably better for understanding in the long way). cheers -ben P.S. As I understand it, NativeBoost performs a bit better than UnifiedFFI, but it hindered cross-architecture compatibility - but UnifiedFFI essentially keeps the NativeBoost syntax - so I wonder if its technically feasible for NativeBoost to become a plug-in backend for UnifiedFFI, that could be used is special circumstances that super-performance is required only on supported platforms? actually (though I do not test it since a couple of months) it should be more or less compatibleâ¦ it was at the beginning, then I made some changesâ¦ what is not compatible anymore is the vm who needs to be changed to use executable memory. Alsoâ¦ yes, NativeBoost is faster (callouts, not callbacks) because you cannot compete with ASM, but you can compite in activation time and optimised codeâ¦ so who knows, in the future that advantage can not exist anymore. cheers, Esteban 2016-01-12 16:55 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com> >: Hi, People has pointed (and they are right) that the name of the new FFI front-end is misleading. So yesterday I was talking with Stef and we think UnifiedFFI (or UFFI, for short) is a better nameâ¦ and to keep packages prox. to regular FFI I was thinking on rename FFI-NB packages to FFI-Unifiedâ¦ but maybe is better just to rename them as UFFI or UnifiedFFIâ¦ what do you think? Esteban

Jan. 13, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Problem with gitfiletree numeration

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com > wrote: > > > 2016-01-13 13:56 GMT+01:00 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Thierry Goubier < >> thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2016-01-13 13:12 GMT+01:00 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> >>> : >>> >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> I wanted to know how you manage this situation. >>>> I had my already existing project in shub repo. Last version >>>> was OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.43. I then created a github repo, >>>> cloned it, and then with gitfiletree I commit for the first time. >>>> >>>> The problem is that the commit I did with GitFileTree received this MC >>>> version: OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1. Normally I would not care. But >>>> in this case I do care because every in a while I would like to >>>> move/publish some versions from github to shub. And >>>> OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 has 2 problems: >>>> >>>> 1) It has an older version number but newer contents >>>> >>> >>> >>>> 2) It's number is not unique. So if I copy versions created from github >>>> to shub, they would override those versiones created in shub (like the very >>>> old OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 from shub) ?? >>>> >>> >>>> How do you normally solve this? >>>> >>> >>> The best is to move all the sthub versions on git, like that, >>> gitfiletree will number newer versions higher and this will work. >>> >>> >> OK, I got it. So you mean to use a Gofer pull/push operation to move all >> versions from shub to github, right? >> > > Yes! > \ > OK, I did that. Problem is I had screwed up the first version. Because now in gitfiletree repo, the OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 is the "new one" and not the old from shub. I suspect this could bring problems for history changes, etc... Is there a way I can revert and copy the original OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 from shub and override the OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 from gitfiletree? Or...at least a way to remove everything and start fresh with the fecth/push??? mmm > It used to work out of the box in the right order, but I now make sure to > push the versions in the right order when I do that (push starting with the > smallest version number). > > Thierry > > >> >> Thanks! >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Jan. 13, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI

by Henrik Nergaard

If the prefix is renamed would it be possible to include a delimiter symbol between whatever prefix name and the object name? (for example underscore). Then one could change the how a class is viewed in a simple manner (see attached example). Best regards, Henrik From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Esteban Lorenzano Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:33 AM To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI So, recapitulation: I want to introduce: 1) package renaming, from FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI 2) prefix renaming, from FFI to UFFI (I will not change method prefix, they will remain ffi* so this is maybe a problemâ¦) 3) method renaming, from ffiLibraryName to ffiLibrary (we didnât talk about this, but Iâm introducing it because is better name :P) I *think* #2 can be skipped, but #1 and #3 are a must. opinions? Esteban On 13 Jan 2016, at 11:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com<mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: On 13 Jan 2016, at 03:46, Ben Coman <btc(a)openInWorld.com<mailto:btc@openinworld.com>> wrote: Le 12/1/16 17:58, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : Hi UFFI reminds me UFO which can be translated like Unified Foreign Objects. And objects outside image look really like unidentified flying objects. It's just address, blob of bytes and they fly outside smalltalk world And it has some relation to Alien name. But maybe it is too much funny name I guess we are considering... Prefix: UFO (shorter) Package: Unified Foreign Objects (longer) Prefix: UFFI (longer) Package: UnifiedFFI (shorter) I like your thinking, but I have mixed feelings. Name is cool. The shorter prefix may be a benefit (though the "I" doesn't add much). But it implies more semantics as an external "object" than external blobs of memory (for example) for C libraries. I like "Unified" because it brings together parts of several implementations (if I understand correctly) and fixes a point of divergence at the VM level making it harder for limited resources to collaborate there. So in the end I think I prefer Unified. yes, I suppose you are right. but I was not considering changing prefix from FFI to UFFI, just repackaging as UnifiedFFI :P nowâ¦ probably I will do it (not many changes to adapt and probably better for understanding in the long way). cheers -ben P.S. As I understand it, NativeBoost performs a bit better than UnifiedFFI, but it hindered cross-architecture compatibility - but UnifiedFFI essentially keeps the NativeBoost syntax - so I wonder if its technically feasible for NativeBoost to become a plug-in backend for UnifiedFFI, that could be used is special circumstances that super-performance is required only on supported platforms? actually (though I do not test it since a couple of months) it should be more or less compatibleâ¦ it was at the beginning, then I made some changesâ¦ what is not compatible anymore is the vm who needs to be changed to use executable memory. Alsoâ¦ yes, NativeBoost is faster (callouts, not callbacks) because you cannot compete with ASM, but you can compite in activation time and optimised codeâ¦ so who knows, in the future that advantage can not exist anymore. cheers, Esteban 2016-01-12 16:55 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com<mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>: Hi, People has pointed (and they are right) that the name of the new FFI front-end is misleading. So yesterday I was talking with Stef and we think UnifiedFFI (or UFFI, for short) is a better nameâ¦ and to keep packages prox. to regular FFI I was thinking on rename FFI-NB packages to FFI-Unifiedâ¦ but maybe is better just to rename them as UFFI or UnifiedFFIâ¦ what do you think? Esteban

Jan. 13, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Problem with gitfiletree numeration

by Thierry Goubier

2016-01-13 13:56 GMT+01:00 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Thierry Goubier < > thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> 2016-01-13 13:12 GMT+01:00 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I wanted to know how you manage this situation. >>> I had my already existing project in shub repo. Last version >>> was OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.43. I then created a github repo, >>> cloned it, and then with gitfiletree I commit for the first time. >>> >>> The problem is that the commit I did with GitFileTree received this MC >>> version: OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1. Normally I would not care. But >>> in this case I do care because every in a while I would like to >>> move/publish some versions from github to shub. And >>> OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 has 2 problems: >>> >>> 1) It has an older version number but newer contents >>> >> >> >>> 2) It's number is not unique. So if I copy versions created from github >>> to shub, they would override those versiones created in shub (like the very >>> old OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 from shub) ?? >>> >> >>> How do you normally solve this? >>> >> >> The best is to move all the sthub versions on git, like that, gitfiletree >> will number newer versions higher and this will work. >> >> > OK, I got it. So you mean to use a Gofer pull/push operation to move all > versions from shub to github, right? > Yes! It used to work out of the box in the right order, but I now make sure to push the versions in the right order when I do that (push starting with the smallest version number). Thierry > > Thanks! > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

Jan. 13, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Problem with gitfiletree numeration

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2016-01-13 13:12 GMT+01:00 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I wanted to know how you manage this situation. >> I had my already existing project in shub repo. Last version >> was OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.43. I then created a github repo, >> cloned it, and then with gitfiletree I commit for the first time. >> >> The problem is that the commit I did with GitFileTree received this MC >> version: OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1. Normally I would not care. But >> in this case I do care because every in a while I would like to >> move/publish some versions from github to shub. And >> OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 has 2 problems: >> >> 1) It has an older version number but newer contents >> > > >> 2) It's number is not unique. So if I copy versions created from github >> to shub, they would override those versiones created in shub (like the very >> old OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 from shub) ?? >> > >> How do you normally solve this? >> > > The best is to move all the sthub versions on git, like that, gitfiletree > will number newer versions higher and this will work. > > OK, I got it. So you mean to use a Gofer pull/push operation to move all versions from shub to github, right? Thanks! -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Jan. 13, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] I will rename FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 13 Jan 2016, at 12:56, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 13 Jan 2016, at 11:32, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> So, recapitulation: >> >> I want to introduce: >> >> 1) package renaming, from FFI-NB to UnifiedFFI >> 2) prefix renaming, from FFI to UFFI (I will not change method prefix, they will remain ffi* so this is maybe a problemâ¦) >> 3) method renaming, from ffiLibraryName to ffiLibrary (we didnât talk about this, but Iâm introducing it because is better name :P) > > But isnât the answered object a string? Then I would vote for #ffiLibraryName. Otherwise Iâd expect a âLibraryâ object. no, it will answer a string or a children of FFILibrary (for instance LibC), thatâs how we deal with different platforms (like libc.so.6, libc.dylib, etc.) Originally it was like you said, but it changedâ¦ I just forget to refactor it. Esteban > >> >> I *think* #2 can be skipped, but #1 and #3 are a must. >> >> opinions? >> >> Esteban >> >>> On 13 Jan 2016, at 11:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 13 Jan 2016, at 03:46, Ben Coman <btc(a)openInWorld.com <mailto:btc@openinworld.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Le 12/1/16 17:58, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> UFFI reminds me UFO which can be translated like Unified Foreign Objects. >>>>> And objects outside image look really like unidentified flying objects. It's just address, blob of bytes and they fly outside smalltalk world >>>>> And it has some relation to Alien name. >>>>> But maybe it is too much funny name >>>> >>>> I guess we are considering... >>>> >>>> Prefix: UFO (shorter) >>>> Package: Unified Foreign Objects (longer) >>>> >>>> Prefix: UFFI (longer) >>>> Package: UnifiedFFI (shorter) >>>> >>>> I like your thinking, but I have mixed feelings. Name is cool. The >>>> shorter prefix may be a benefit (though the "I" doesn't add much). >>>> But it implies more semantics as an external "object" than external >>>> blobs of memory (for example) for C libraries. >>>> I like "Unified" because it brings together parts of several >>>> implementations (if I understand correctly) and fixes a point of >>>> divergence at the VM level making it harder for limited resources to >>>> collaborate there. >>>> So in the end I think I prefer Unified. >>> >>> yes, I suppose you are right. >>> but I was not considering changing prefix from FFI to UFFI, just repackaging as UnifiedFFI :P >>> >>> nowâ¦ probably I will do it (not many changes to adapt and probably better for understanding in the long way). >>> >>>> >>>> cheers -ben >>>> >>>> P.S. As I understand it, NativeBoost performs a bit better than >>>> UnifiedFFI, but it hindered cross-architecture compatibility - but >>>> UnifiedFFI essentially keeps the NativeBoost syntax - so I wonder if >>>> its technically feasible for NativeBoost to become a plug-in backend >>>> for UnifiedFFI, that could be used is special circumstances that >>>> super-performance is required only on supported platforms? >>> >>> actually (though I do not test it since a couple of months) it should be more or less compatibleâ¦ it was at the beginning, then I made some changesâ¦ >>> what is not compatible anymore is the vm who needs to be changed to use executable memory. >>> >>> Alsoâ¦ yes, NativeBoost is faster (callouts, not callbacks) because you cannot compete with ASM, but you can compite in activation time and optimised codeâ¦ so who knows, in the future that advantage can not exist anymore. >>> >>> cheers, >>> Esteban >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2016-01-12 16:55 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> People has pointed (and they are right) that the name of the new FFI >>>>>> front-end is misleading. >>>>>> So yesterday I was talking with Stef and we think UnifiedFFI (or UFFI, for >>>>>> short) is a better nameâ¦ and to keep packages prox. to regular FFI I was >>>>>> thinking on rename FFI-NB packages to FFI-Unifiedâ¦ but maybe is better just >>>>>> to rename them as UFFI or UnifiedFFIâ¦ >>>>>> what do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Esteban >> >

Jan. 13, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Problem with gitfiletree numeration

by Thierry Goubier

2016-01-13 13:12 GMT+01:00 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com>: > Hi guys, > > I wanted to know how you manage this situation. > I had my already existing project in shub repo. Last version > was OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.43. I then created a github repo, > cloned it, and then with gitfiletree I commit for the first time. > > The problem is that the commit I did with GitFileTree received this MC > version: OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1. Normally I would not care. But > in this case I do care because every in a while I would like to > move/publish some versions from github to shub. And > OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 has 2 problems: > > 1) It has an older version number but newer contents > > 2) It's number is not unique. So if I copy versions created from github to > shub, they would override those versiones created in shub (like the very > old OSSubprocess-MarianoMartinezPeck.1 from shub) ?? > > How do you normally solve this? > The best is to move all the sthub versions on git, like that, gitfiletree will number newer versions higher and this will work. (I'm still considering numbering gitfiletree versions with their SHA commit, but... MC expects numbers, and ordering matters in non-git repositories) Thierry > > Thanks! > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

Jan. 13, 2016