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

Re: [Pharo-dev] A question on the catalog

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > First of all how many are undocumented ? Do we have any statistics ? 252/407 (~62%) For me +1 for removing/hiding undocumented ones. I would also propose to add a method having just the link to the original repo, whether that's smalltalkhub or github, and show that in the catalog browser. Peter

June 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] A question on the catalog

by Dimitris Chloupis

First of all how many are undocumented ? Do we have any statistics ? Personally I don't thinks it's a huge issue because most people use catalog as an easy install and not to discover new packages. I have not even bothered to read the ones that are documented. Frankly I don't mind because I always document and if I need a package I will just document it. On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 at 12:44, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-06-11 10:17 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > >> >> > On 11 Jun 2016, at 09:17, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> > >> > Esteban >> > >> > The current catalog is an inbox. We should define the rules for the >> real ones and validate the entries. >> > >> > Entries that are not described should not be put in the real catalog. >> >> yes, but validation rules is something for the future. >> What do we do with the ones that now are in the inbox but do not fulfils >> the minimum requirements? This requires a fix now, and the possible fix is >> hide themâ¦ and report the non documented projects to this list, so people >> who maintain them can document it. >> >> so, ideal: have a monkey process to run validations for newly added >> packages (btw, Pavel, I think the same âcatalog-updaterâ script can be >> extended for this. >> > > OK! > >> >> possible right now: not showing the ones who are bad documented and then >> report periodically which ones should be documented. >> >> Esteban >> >> > >> > >> > Stef >> > >> > >> > Le 10/6/16 Ã 14:52, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I was doing a pass on the catalogâ¦ I think is very negative that >> non-documented projects appear thereâ¦ because most people does not know >> what does projects are about and newcomers will find weird a project >> install tool with lots of projects without any description. >> >> So I was thinking on put an option âshow allâ and hide those projects >> by defaultâ¦ but now I think those projects SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL, >> as a way of: >> >> >> >> - offer better experience to non-power users, and >> >> - encourage people to actually document their projectsâ¦ is very >> annoying to have so much of them without any documentation. >> >> >> >> What do you think? >> >> >> >> cheers, >> >> Esteban >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >>

June 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] A question on the catalog

by Pavel Krivanek

2016-06-11 10:17 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > > > On 11 Jun 2016, at 09:17, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > > Esteban > > > > The current catalog is an inbox. We should define the rules for the real > ones and validate the entries. > > > > Entries that are not described should not be put in the real catalog. > > yes, but validation rules is something for the future. > What do we do with the ones that now are in the inbox but do not fulfils > the minimum requirements? This requires a fix now, and the possible fix is > hide themâ¦ and report the non documented projects to this list, so people > who maintain them can document it. > > so, ideal: have a monkey process to run validations for newly added > packages (btw, Pavel, I think the same âcatalog-updaterâ script can be > extended for this. > OK! > > possible right now: not showing the ones who are bad documented and then > report periodically which ones should be documented. > > Esteban > > > > > > > Stef > > > > > > Le 10/6/16 Ã 14:52, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > >> Hi, > >> > >> I was doing a pass on the catalogâ¦ I think is very negative that > non-documented projects appear thereâ¦ because most people does not know > what does projects are about and newcomers will find weird a project > install tool with lots of projects without any description. > >> So I was thinking on put an option âshow allâ and hide those projects > by defaultâ¦ but now I think those projects SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL, > as a way of: > >> > >> - offer better experience to non-power users, and > >> - encourage people to actually document their projectsâ¦ is very > annoying to have so much of them without any documentation. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> cheers, > >> Esteban > >> > > > > > > >

June 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] A question on the catalog

by stepharo

right now We should remove the ones with no documentation. Or let us in Pharo 60 we only accept the ones with documentation. Le 11/6/16 Ã 10:17, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >> On 11 Jun 2016, at 09:17, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >> Esteban >> >> The current catalog is an inbox. We should define the rules for the real ones and validate the entries. >> >> Entries that are not described should not be put in the real catalog. > yes, but validation rules is something for the future. > What do we do with the ones that now are in the inbox but do not fulfils the minimum requirements? This requires a fix now, and the possible fix is hide themâ¦ and report the non documented projects to this list, so people who maintain them can document it. > > so, ideal: have a monkey process to run validations for newly added packages (btw, Pavel, I think the same âcatalog-updaterâ script can be extended for this. > > possible right now: not showing the ones who are bad documented and then report periodically which ones should be documented. > > Esteban > >> >> Stef >> >> >> Le 10/6/16 Ã 14:52, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was doing a pass on the catalogâ¦ I think is very negative that non-documented projects appear thereâ¦ because most people does not know what does projects are about and newcomers will find weird a project install tool with lots of projects without any description. >>> So I was thinking on put an option âshow allâ and hide those projects by defaultâ¦ but now I think those projects SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL, as a way of: >>> >>> - offer better experience to non-power users, and >>> - encourage people to actually document their projectsâ¦ is very annoying to have so much of them without any documentation. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> cheers, >>> Esteban >>> >> > >

June 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] CodeImporter and Rubric will not be external projects managed by configurations

by stepharo

Cargo all the packages have a configuration and it should be easier. even if projects will have to specify their hosts. BTW I hope that we will kill rubric because alain did it just as a hack to help synectique. > Yes, good idea, external projects only make sense if they really can exist outside Pharo and if they are actively maintained as such. > >> On 10 Jun 2016, at 10:43, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> to make our and your lifes easier we want to stop to manage CodeImporter and Rubric as external projects. For CodeImporter it makes no sense to have it as external project and moreover why to have special configuration for only one package. The Rubric has a lot of small updates, not defined maintainer and manage it externally is a pain for everyone. >> >> Let us know if you have something against it. >> >> Cheers, >> -- Pavel > >

June 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] spotter usage - a rough analysis of categories

by Alistair Grant

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 09:47:40AM +0200, Guille Polito wrote: > Also, from the top of my head there is at least one use case that I cannot yet > replace with spotter, and I have to use a normal workspace/playground to do it > => browse senders or implementors. While i use senders/implementors search in > spotter, sometimes I want to *browse* them to be able to look at them, and > interact with the code. However, from spotter I can only observe results but > not edit them. Indeed, if there was a way to open the MessageFlowBrowser from spotter, that would completely replace Senders and Implementers for me. Cheers, Alistair

June 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] A question on the catalog

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 11 Jun 2016, at 09:17, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > Esteban > > The current catalog is an inbox. We should define the rules for the real ones and validate the entries. > > Entries that are not described should not be put in the real catalog. yes, but validation rules is something for the future. What do we do with the ones that now are in the inbox but do not fulfils the minimum requirements? This requires a fix now, and the possible fix is hide themâ¦ and report the non documented projects to this list, so people who maintain them can document it. so, ideal: have a monkey process to run validations for newly added packages (btw, Pavel, I think the same âcatalog-updaterâ script can be extended for this. possible right now: not showing the ones who are bad documented and then report periodically which ones should be documented. Esteban > > > Stef > > > Le 10/6/16 Ã 14:52, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >> Hi, >> >> I was doing a pass on the catalogâ¦ I think is very negative that non-documented projects appear thereâ¦ because most people does not know what does projects are about and newcomers will find weird a project install tool with lots of projects without any description. >> So I was thinking on put an option âshow allâ and hide those projects by defaultâ¦ but now I think those projects SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL, as a way of: >> >> - offer better experience to non-power users, and >> - encourage people to actually document their projectsâ¦ is very annoying to have so much of them without any documentation. >> >> What do you think? >> >> cheers, >> Esteban >> > >

June 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] A question on the catalog

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, > On 11 Jun 2016, at 08:53, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Esteban, > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:52:46PM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was doing a pass on the catalog??? I think is very negative that non-documented projects appear there??? because most people does not know what does projects are about and newcomers will find weird a project install tool with lots of projects without any description. >> So I was thinking on put an option ???show all??? and hide those projects by default??? but now I think those projects SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL, as a way of: >> >> - offer better experience to non-power users, and >> - encourage people to actually document their projects??? is very annoying to have so much of them without any documentation. >> >> What do you think? > > Rather than hiding projects that people were legitimately allowed to add > (at the time), why not modify the catalog to not accept projects > that don't have sufficient metadata, including the description? it is not possible right now, and the hiding would work as the same. people were legitimately allowed is also relativeâ¦ truth is that most undocumented projects comes from MetacelloRepository (the original one) and there was no catalog nor metacello toolbox :P but most important: most of those projects are unmaintained projects are will not load anyway, so they are not just source of noise, they also can make the community looks bad, I think. > > IIRC there was some discussion about hiding or lowering the priority of > projects that haven't been modified or confirmed as working in the > latest versions of Pharo. That would still be useful. well, hiding them would certainly âlower the categoryâ. My first approach (toggle hide/show) would work... > > Between the two, that would get rid of undocumented projects. > > Just my 2c, > Alistair cheers, Esteban

June 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] A question on the catalog

by stepharo

Esteban The current catalog is an inbox. We should define the rules for the real ones and validate the entries. Entries that are not described should not be put in the real catalog. Stef Le 10/6/16 Ã 14:52, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > Hi, > > I was doing a pass on the catalogâ¦ I think is very negative that non-documented projects appear thereâ¦ because most people does not know what does projects are about and newcomers will find weird a project install tool with lots of projects without any description. > So I was thinking on put an option âshow allâ and hide those projects by defaultâ¦ but now I think those projects SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL, as a way of: > > - offer better experience to non-power users, and > - encourage people to actually document their projectsâ¦ is very annoying to have so much of them without any documentation. > > What do you think? > > cheers, > Esteban >

June 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] A question on the catalog

by Alistair Grant

Hi Esteban, On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:52:46PM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > Hi, > > I was doing a pass on the catalog??? I think is very negative that non-documented projects appear there??? because most people does not know what does projects are about and newcomers will find weird a project install tool with lots of projects without any description. > So I was thinking on put an option ???show all??? and hide those projects by default??? but now I think those projects SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL, as a way of: > > - offer better experience to non-power users, and > - encourage people to actually document their projects??? is very annoying to have so much of them without any documentation. > > What do you think? Rather than hiding projects that people were legitimately allowed to add (at the time), why not modify the catalog to not accept projects that don't have sufficient metadata, including the description? IIRC there was some discussion about hiding or lowering the priority of projects that haven't been modified or confirmed as working in the latest versions of Pharo. That would still be useful. Between the two, that would get rid of undocumented projects. Just my 2c, Alistair

June 11, 2016