November 2018 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Infinite error recursion while saving Pharo70 alpha

by Marcus Denker

> On 7 Nov 2018, at 13:56, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Sven, > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 10:37, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 7 Nov 2018, at 10:27, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 10:16, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> When saving one of the latest pharo70 image I got an infinite recursion loop due to message not understood. Force closing it probably lead to image corruption and it became un-openable anymore. Any idea what is going on? It does not look like a unique case because there are a few pharo70 images that already died in front of me... >>> >>> This looks like your image changes the definition of >>> Number>>raisedToInteger: somewhere along the line. In the standard >>> image it doesn't call #run:with:in:. >> >> I don't think that definition got overwritten, check the implementers of #run:with:in: is seems to have to do with meta links or proxies or something like that ... > Or it could be a bug where the VM ends up getting a SmallInteger instead of a CompiledMethod as the result of a method lookup. That would be bad... > Good point. How to get a list of all the methods that have MetaLinks? > The following seems to work, but probably isn't the most efficient: > > Object allSubclasses flatCollect: [ :each | each methods select: [ > :method | method ast links isNotNil ] ] > you can ask the method directly Object allSubclasses flatCollect: [ :each | each methods select: [ :method | method hasLinks ] ] this is much faster as it returns immediately nil for methods without links (without AST reification). Marcus

Nov. 7, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Ben Coman

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 17:16, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > It is not so easy. > > A huge project as Pharo would profit to be split in order to manage its parts correctly. For example, we recently released iceberg 1.3.0. And there were some problems around and we evaluate the possibility of revert that release until we fix the problems. At the end, problems were not so important and the fix was made with a 1.3.1 release and almost immediately an 1.4.0. > > Now, imagine If iceberg would be integrated in pharo. > > 1. The nature of âicebergâ would be lost in other parts. We cannot talk anymore of releasing 1.3.1 or whatever, we just release Pharo. No clear way to know what changed in Iceberg without digging in the full list of changes. > 2. If we need to revert. How do we do it? There is no release so what do we revert? A commit? How many commits? How do we revert if development tree continued growing and iceberg commit are now mixed with others? > Of course, we could maintain a branch. But then I'd argÃ¼e is more or less the same as having a separated project. > > Situation is not ideal (even if it is a lot better as before). > But Iâm envisioning this solution: add multiple source directories capability. > > Then we can have: > > src/kernel > src/system > src/spec > src/iceberg > src/calypso > etc. > > This will not just help to improve modularisation but weâll gives a âfreeâ feature : using git subtree to manage those directories. > For those who do not know: subtree allow us to merge different project trees into one. But the important part is how it will behave in Pharo (or other projects adopting it): For Pharo it will be JUST ONE REPOSITORY. So one single commit will spread to all repositories. > Now, the âprice to payâ later is that time to time we need to push subtree from Pharo to their external projects (but this can be automated easily), and of course, doing âan iceberg releaseâ means to do a pull subtree from external repository to Pharo (also very easy). Why not a submodule approach? I do vaguely remember you having some pain with it integrating the opensmalltalk-vm repo under the pharo-vm repo before Pharo started more directly using the opensmallk-vm CI products. I thought I might have something useful to contribute to discussion by finding the good article [1] I remembered that compared subtree and submodule, the summary of which is... * Is the external repository something you own yourself and are likely to push code back to? Then use a submodule. This gives you the quickest and easiest way for you to push your changes back. * Is the external repository third party code that you are unlikely to push anything back to? Then use a subtree. This gives the advantage of not having to give people permissions to an extra repo when you are giving them access to the code base, and also reduces the chance that someone will forget to run a git submodule update. [But this could be automated in Pharo] But then I came across [2] which says... * Submodules [...] work well when you want to include a third-party library in your project that only occasionally needs to be updated. so I don't know. [1] https://codewinsarguments.co/2016/05/01/git-submodules-vs-git-subtrees/ [2] http://www.mos6581.org/git_subtree_alternative I think main issues to consider between the two options are: A. the effect on history between Pharo repo and dependent repos, of commits to either repo B. how branching is handled between Pharo repo and dependent repos and I don't know really have my head around that, so for now I'll shut it. :) anyway, my understanding was that subtree was implemented in shell scripts and not libgit so does that make it more difficult? https://stackoverflow.com/a/25474895 cheers -ben > > Esteban > > Ps: remember: programming is an iterative improving process. âProcess" is part of programming so iterations applies to it too. > > > On 7 Nov 2018, at 07:02, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > > > Itâs a tricky trade off as Norbert alludes too - in my recent example I needed some underlying base pieces in place (for the compilerâs ast) and those needed reviewing to then be committed - then there were two parts to Calypso that relied on those changes) that also needed reviewing and I wasnât sure if Denis waited for the core approval or loaded up my PR - but anyway it took him a bit of time to process that and he came back with some better suggestions that I also needed to implement (which I had to find time to do as well). > > > > When I noticed that the core Pharo pieces were merged, I then had to chase Denis to see if he was now happy and could merge my changes. > > > > I guess it would be helpful if there was a way to easily load up multiple project prâs in one go (like the suggested slice concept) so maintainers can easily review. Probably more importantly is an easy way to track the status of multiple submissions so you can follow up with relevant people and push things along and also ensure things get committed in the right order (eg doc the dependency chain a bit better). > > > > For me, after a few days I forgot about my Calypso changes and realised a few weeks later (by accident) and so could chase Denis. > > > > I think itâs this latter case that Steph alludes to - you lose interest after a few days without some useful prompts and easy status tracking. If we can make that easier I think it would help. > > > > Tim > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On 7 Nov 2018, at 05:48, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > >> > >> I get the feeling what is needed is mirroring all dependent repos from > >> the canonical location under http://github.com/pharo-project > >> and a Slice-like tool (probably keeping the name "Slice") which... > >> 1. Pulls all dependent repos to the local machine > >> 2. Simultaneously commits to the local repos with the same commit message > >> 3. Updates a bootstrap-configuration file holding commit-hashes of all > >> the dependencies and commits with same commit message > >> 4. Pushes that bootstrap-configuration file and all changed dependent > >> repos to user's github account > >> 5. Issues a pull request for the bootstrap-configuration file > >> 6. Our CI then builds a test-image by commit-hash direct from each > >> user's repo and if it passes, pulls dependent repo commits under > >> pharo-project > >> 7. CI can then issue PRs to the dependency canonical repos > >> > >> cheers -ben > >> > >>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 02:55, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Calypso is integral part of Pharo as Iceberg. > >>> We started to discuss the problem in the team. Right now this project > >>> spread kills us. > >>> > >>> Stef > >>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:56 AM Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>> In retrospect, Iâm wondering if successful projects that have proved > >>>>> integration usefulness should be moved into the core repo? > >>>>> (Iceberg/Calypso?) or are we missing something to help easily track the > >>>>> journey of a multi faceted change (although this sounds overkill?). Or > >>>>> are there sprint days to try and knock these things through easily with > >>>>> everyone on board to do it together? > >>>>> > >>>>> We are sort of damned if you do and damned if you donât. But certainly we > >>>>> want to endure that progress can be made without losing the will to contribute. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Indeed. Putting things in one repo cannot scale and cannot be a solution > >>>> for something that is neither core pharo nor an application. I encourage > >>>> everyone who wants to get a good description of this problem to read > >>>> > >>>> "Managing Design Data: The Five Dimensions of CAD Frameworks, Configuration > >>>> Management, and Product Data Management" by Peter van den Hamer & Kees > >>>> Lepoeter. > >>>> > >>>> With git and github a solution to decouple fast-moving from slow-moving > >>>> projects seems to be indeed to fork and make PRs. > >>>> That only works if the quality of the PRs is high enough and we manage to > >>>> use the feedback from slower-moving projects well. > >>>> > >>>> Earlier, weâve seen projects like Magma being overwhelmed by the number of > >>>> needed changes, and Pier being broken by Pillar not respecting its > >>>> constraints. > >>>> > >>>> With tools like Travis, it is quickly clear if a PR would result in a green > >>>> build in the original repo. > >>>> > >>>> With projects where Pharo uses only the core, and applications use more > >>>> than that, the applications still have a dependency problem: if the core > >>>> changes in Pharo influence the other parts, someone needs to do the work to > >>>> make those parts work again. With forked repos, that can be a pharo > >>>> maintainer, the project maintainer or the application maintainer. All three > >>>> need to be able to make those changes. And they need to be decoupled from > >>>> having to make them immediately. And being able to have the discussion > >>>> about the exact implementation independently from implementing a stop-gap > >>>> solution now is also valuable. > >>>> > >>>> So if Calypso is supposed to be extendable and only the core part is part > >>>> of Pharo, having it as an external project makes sense. With a fork for > >>>> Pharo to move at its own speed. If Iceberg is Pharo-only, just having > >>>> different branches for different Pharo versions, it sounds to me like it > >>>> might be better of in the Pharo project. Tonel is supposed to be > >>>> cross-platform so should be separate. > >>>> > >>>> Is this helpful? > >>>> > >>>> Stephan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > >

Nov. 7, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Infinite error recursion while saving Pharo70 alpha

by Alistair Grant

Hi Sven, On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 10:37, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > > > On 7 Nov 2018, at 10:27, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 10:16, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> When saving one of the latest pharo70 image I got an infinite recursion loop due to message not understood. Force closing it probably lead to image corruption and it became un-openable anymore. Any idea what is going on? It does not look like a unique case because there are a few pharo70 images that already died in front of me... > > > > This looks like your image changes the definition of > > Number>>raisedToInteger: somewhere along the line. In the standard > > image it doesn't call #run:with:in:. > > I don't think that definition got overwritten, check the implementers of #run:with:in: is seems to have to do with meta links or proxies or something like that ... Good point. How to get a list of all the methods that have MetaLinks? The following seems to work, but probably isn't the most efficient: Object allSubclasses flatCollect: [ :each | each methods select: [ :method | method ast links isNotNil ] ] Cheers, Alistair

Nov. 7, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Stephan Eggermont

Chris Muller <asqueaker(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Earlier, weâve seen projects like Magma being overwhelmed by the number of >> needed changes, > > I'm curious what you meant by this. I'm not aware of Magma ever > having been overwhelmed. Its design has made it easy to be one of the > most-available and consumable pieces of software for every version of > Squeak from 2007 to today. Did you mean the Pharo port? It doesn't > really do any magic, I'd be surprised if it would be very difficult to > port to Pharo, but I don't know. Several people have been working on a Magma version for Pharo. At the time (Pharo 1.0-1.2) the Pharo CI infrastructure was not giving enough feedback to keep the port running. Once a year or so someone comes along who tries fixing the port, and that appears to be too difficult or time consuming for them. It needs pretty deep knowledge about internals. I agree that it would probably not be very difficult for a long time pharo/squeak developer. Finding out what exactly changed and why in the past 8 years is not so easy for someone new. Without someone using it in production on Pharo, there is not enough incentive to keep up with what changes in Pharo. Thereâs a chicken and egg problem there Stephan

Nov. 7, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1370: 22629-Secondary-selection-is-too-bright-when-switching-to-the-dark-theme

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1370 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #1953 was integrated: "22629-Secondary-selection-is-too-bright-when-switching-to-the-dark-theme" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1953 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22629 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Nov. 7, 2018

Slow writing to Transcript (stderr) in Windows 10 PharoConsole.exe -headless

by Christopher Fuhrman

Hello, I encountered a performance bug in Pharo 6 under Windows 10 with Moose, starting from the Moose 6.1 (beta) image in Pharo Launcher. I migrated my code from Pharo 5 and it uses a PharoCommandLineHandler to load an MSE file, which sometimes has many (15K) warnings/errors. It was taking over a minute to run something that in Moose takes only a few seconds. To debug and make a minimal example, I removed the Moose file part of my CommandLineHandler and simulated the writing of errors (i/o) with a loop. I believe the I/O to the stderr is why the performance is bad. In Windows 10 Task Manager, I can see that the process is not using much CPU. As I recall, my code didn't have this performance problem in Pharo 5. The command in windows to execute my minimal sample is something like: C:\Users\me>Documents\Pharo\vms\61-x86\PharoConsole.exe -headless "C:\Users\me\Documents\Pharo\images\Moose Suite 6.1 (beta)\CommandHandler VM slow bug.image" mooseminer --msefile blah The last part (--msefile blah) is needed because I didn't want to remove the argument validation. Here's a copy of the image: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7cgt37lef2xh2ut/CommandHandler%20VM%20slow%20bug.… A workaround is to run without -headless (or to not have so many errors). I hope this is useful to someone. For RMOD people I'm happy to demo this on my machine. Cheers, -- Christopher Fuhrman, P.Eng, PhD *Professor in the DÃ©partement of Software and IT EngineeringÃTS (Ãcole de technologie supÃ©rieure)* http://profs.etsmtl.ca/cfuhrman +1 514 396 8638 *L'ÃTS est une constituante de l'UniversitÃ© du QuÃ©bec*

Nov. 7, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Infinite error recursion while saving Pharo70 alpha

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 7 Nov 2018, at 10:27, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 10:16, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> When saving one of the latest pharo70 image I got an infinite recursion loop due to message not understood. Force closing it probably lead to image corruption and it became un-openable anymore. Any idea what is going on? It does not look like a unique case because there are a few pharo70 images that already died in front of me... > > This looks like your image changes the definition of > Number>>raisedToInteger: somewhere along the line. In the standard > image it doesn't call #run:with:in:. I don't think that definition got overwritten, check the implementers of #run:with:in: is seems to have to do with meta links or proxies or something like that ... > HTH, > Alistair >

Nov. 7, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Infinite error recursion while saving Pharo70 alpha

by Alistair Grant

Hi Alex, On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 10:16, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > When saving one of the latest pharo70 image I got an infinite recursion loop due to message not understood. Force closing it probably lead to image corruption and it became un-openable anymore. Any idea what is going on? It does not look like a unique case because there are a few pharo70 images that already died in front of me... This looks like your image changes the definition of Number>>raisedToInteger: somewhere along the line. In the standard image it doesn't call #run:with:in:. HTH, Alistair

Nov. 7, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Esteban Lorenzano

It is not so easy. A huge project as Pharo would profit to be split in order to manage its parts correctly. For example, we recently released iceberg 1.3.0. And there were some problems around and we evaluate the possibility of revert that release until we fix the problems. At the end, problems were not so important and the fix was made with a 1.3.1 release and almost immediately an 1.4.0. Now, imagine If iceberg would be integrated in pharo. 1. The nature of âicebergâ would be lost in other parts. We cannot talk anymore of releasing 1.3.1 or whatever, we just release Pharo. No clear way to know what changed in Iceberg without digging in the full list of changes. 2. If we need to revert. How do we do it? There is no release so what do we revert? A commit? How many commits? How do we revert if development tree continued growing and iceberg commit are now mixed with others? Of course, we could maintain a branch. But then I'd argÃ¼e is more or less the same as having a separated project. Situation is not ideal (even if it is a lot better as before). But Iâm envisioning this solution: add multiple source directories capability. Then we can have: src/kernel src/system src/spec src/iceberg src/calypso etc. This will not just help to improve modularisation but weâll gives a âfreeâ feature : using git subtree to manage those directories. For those who do not know: subtree allow us to merge different project trees into one. But the important part is how it will behave in Pharo (or other projects adopting it): For Pharo it will be JUST ONE REPOSITORY. So one single commit will spread to all repositories. Now, the âprice to payâ later is that time to time we need to push subtree from Pharo to their external projects (but this can be automated easily), and of course, doing âan iceberg releaseâ means to do a pull subtree from external repository to Pharo (also very easy). Esteban Ps: remember: programming is an iterative improving process. âProcess" is part of programming so iterations applies to it too. > On 7 Nov 2018, at 07:02, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > > Itâs a tricky trade off as Norbert alludes too - in my recent example I needed some underlying base pieces in place (for the compilerâs ast) and those needed reviewing to then be committed - then there were two parts to Calypso that relied on those changes) that also needed reviewing and I wasnât sure if Denis waited for the core approval or loaded up my PR - but anyway it took him a bit of time to process that and he came back with some better suggestions that I also needed to implement (which I had to find time to do as well). > > When I noticed that the core Pharo pieces were merged, I then had to chase Denis to see if he was now happy and could merge my changes. > > I guess it would be helpful if there was a way to easily load up multiple project prâs in one go (like the suggested slice concept) so maintainers can easily review. Probably more importantly is an easy way to track the status of multiple submissions so you can follow up with relevant people and push things along and also ensure things get committed in the right order (eg doc the dependency chain a bit better). > > For me, after a few days I forgot about my Calypso changes and realised a few weeks later (by accident) and so could chase Denis. > > I think itâs this latter case that Steph alludes to - you lose interest after a few days without some useful prompts and easy status tracking. If we can make that easier I think it would help. > > Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 7 Nov 2018, at 05:48, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> I get the feeling what is needed is mirroring all dependent repos from >> the canonical location under http://github.com/pharo-project >> and a Slice-like tool (probably keeping the name "Slice") which... >> 1. Pulls all dependent repos to the local machine >> 2. Simultaneously commits to the local repos with the same commit message >> 3. Updates a bootstrap-configuration file holding commit-hashes of all >> the dependencies and commits with same commit message >> 4. Pushes that bootstrap-configuration file and all changed dependent >> repos to user's github account >> 5. Issues a pull request for the bootstrap-configuration file >> 6. Our CI then builds a test-image by commit-hash direct from each >> user's repo and if it passes, pulls dependent repo commits under >> pharo-project >> 7. CI can then issue PRs to the dependency canonical repos >> >> cheers -ben >> >>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 02:55, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Calypso is integral part of Pharo as Iceberg. >>> We started to discuss the problem in the team. Right now this project >>> spread kills us. >>> >>> Stef >>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:56 AM Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote: >>>> >>>> Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> In retrospect, Iâm wondering if successful projects that have proved >>>>> integration usefulness should be moved into the core repo? >>>>> (Iceberg/Calypso?) or are we missing something to help easily track the >>>>> journey of a multi faceted change (although this sounds overkill?). Or >>>>> are there sprint days to try and knock these things through easily with >>>>> everyone on board to do it together? >>>>> >>>>> We are sort of damned if you do and damned if you donât. But certainly we >>>>> want to endure that progress can be made without losing the will to contribute. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Indeed. Putting things in one repo cannot scale and cannot be a solution >>>> for something that is neither core pharo nor an application. I encourage >>>> everyone who wants to get a good description of this problem to read >>>> >>>> "Managing Design Data: The Five Dimensions of CAD Frameworks, Configuration >>>> Management, and Product Data Management" by Peter van den Hamer & Kees >>>> Lepoeter. >>>> >>>> With git and github a solution to decouple fast-moving from slow-moving >>>> projects seems to be indeed to fork and make PRs. >>>> That only works if the quality of the PRs is high enough and we manage to >>>> use the feedback from slower-moving projects well. >>>> >>>> Earlier, weâve seen projects like Magma being overwhelmed by the number of >>>> needed changes, and Pier being broken by Pillar not respecting its >>>> constraints. >>>> >>>> With tools like Travis, it is quickly clear if a PR would result in a green >>>> build in the original repo. >>>> >>>> With projects where Pharo uses only the core, and applications use more >>>> than that, the applications still have a dependency problem: if the core >>>> changes in Pharo influence the other parts, someone needs to do the work to >>>> make those parts work again. With forked repos, that can be a pharo >>>> maintainer, the project maintainer or the application maintainer. All three >>>> need to be able to make those changes. And they need to be decoupled from >>>> having to make them immediately. And being able to have the discussion >>>> about the exact implementation independently from implementing a stop-gap >>>> solution now is also valuable. >>>> >>>> So if Calypso is supposed to be extendable and only the core part is part >>>> of Pharo, having it as an external project makes sense. With a fork for >>>> Pharo to move at its own speed. If Iceberg is Pharo-only, just having >>>> different branches for different Pharo versions, it sounds to me like it >>>> might be better of in the Pharo project. Tonel is supposed to be >>>> cross-platform so should be separate. >>>> >>>> Is this helpful? >>>> >>>> Stephan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > >

Nov. 7, 2018

[ANN] Iceberg v1.4.0

by Cyril Ferlicot

Hello! This week we are releasing the version v1.4.0 of Iceberg. (https://github.com/pharo-vcs/iceberg/releases/tag/v1.4.0) This version is available in the latest Pharo 7. This release fixes a bug introduced in v1.3. It also add new features in the repository view, add some cleaning and also re-introduce a feature that was lost. Thanks to all contributors. Enjoy! Full changelog: Bugfixes #1068 'There is no associated repository configured.' warning on right clicking missing repository Features #1077 Repository view: Allow to collapse branches/remotes/tags trees #847 Move tags under remotes in Repository view #1070 set upstream if missing Cleanups #1066 Pharo 7: PackageManifest subclasses should be packaged with "Manifest" #1015 Replace usages of Glamour in the Github Plugin #1063 1061-Introduce-iconNamed-in-IceDefinition-and-IceTipModel-and-remove-all-the-terrible-Smalltalk-ui-icons -- Cyril Ferlicot https://ferlicot.fr

Nov. 7, 2018