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

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] New VM stables promoted

by Esteban Lorenzano

mehâ¦ and I will be to revert again. linux 32 VM libgit2 is not working, it seems. I will revert. And I will do an stop the world to fix the VM dependency problems because this is too much. Next week, updates of iceberg will come from Guilleâs hand, I will be working on VM-side. cheers, Esteban > On 13 Apr 2018, at 10:42, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 13 Apr 2018, at 10:31, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com <mailto:serge.stinckwich@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Thank you Esteban. Including 7.0 64 bits ? > > All VMs. > (Still not 64bit windows, sorry) > > Esteban > >> >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just promoted new VMs as stable. >> >> This are the builds corresponding to: >> >> 201804122226 (07c6dc3) >> >> this passed the build tests so *it should* be ok. >> >> can you people test? >> >> thanks! >> >> Esteban >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> UMI UMMISCO 209 (SU/IRD/UY1) >> "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." >> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ <http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/>

April 13, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] request Calypso added as a "project" in Fogbugz

by Marcus Denker

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 11:28, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > Can Calypso be added as a "project" in Fogbugz? > I went to create an issue but could not find an appropriate place to file it under. > I added it. > As a backup I add an issue to the github tracker... > https://github.com/dionisiydk/Calypso/issues/235 <https://github.com/dionisiydk/Calypso/issues/235> > > However I have some concerns about scattering Issues away from Fogbugz > since this makes it harder to get an overview of outstanding issues > (particularly leading up to a Release), and also the github tracker > doesn't have priorities. > > fyi, here is the report... > In Pharo 60540, using Nautilus to view the Delay class definition, > selecting class variable 'Scheduler' > right-click > Code search > references to it > produces 13 results. > > In Pharo-7.0+alpha.build.762.sha.0e0fe47c5 doing the same with Calypso > produces 0 results. It still works with Nautilus. > > cheers -ben

April 13, 2018

request Calypso added as a "project" in Fogbugz

by Ben Coman

Can Calypso be added as a "project" in Fogbugz? I went to create an issue but could not find an appropriate place to file it under. As a backup I add an issue to the github tracker... https://github.com/dionisiydk/Calypso/issues/235 However I have some concerns about scattering Issues away from Fogbugz since this makes it harder to get an overview of outstanding issues (particularly leading up to a Release), and also the github tracker doesn't have priorities. fyi, here is the report... In Pharo 60540, using Nautilus to view the Delay class definition, selecting class variable 'Scheduler' > right-click > Code search > references to it produces 13 results. In Pharo-7.0+alpha.build.762.sha.0e0fe47c5 doing the same with Calypso produces 0 results. It still works with Nautilus. cheers -ben

April 13, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] New VM stables promoted

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 10:31, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you Esteban. Including 7.0 64 bits ? All VMs. (Still not 64bit windows, sorry) Esteban > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > I just promoted new VMs as stable. > > This are the builds corresponding to: > > 201804122226 (07c6dc3) > > this passed the build tests so *it should* be ok. > > can you people test? > > thanks! > > Esteban > > > > > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UMI UMMISCO 209 (SU/IRD/UY1) > "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ <http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/>

April 13, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] New VM stables promoted

by Serge Stinckwich

Thank you Esteban. Including 7.0 64 bits ? On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I just promoted new VMs as stable. > > This are the builds corresponding to: > > 201804122226 (07c6dc3) > > this passed the build tests so *it should* be ok. > > can you people test? > > thanks! > > Esteban > > -- Serge Stinckwich UMI UMMISCO 209 (SU/IRD/UY1) "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

April 13, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] New VM stables promoted

by Tudor Girba

Yuuppeee! I will test the 64bit right away. Thanks, Doru > On Apr 13, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I just promoted new VMs as stable. > > This are the builds corresponding to: > > 201804122226 (07c6dc3) > > this passed the build tests so *it should* be ok. > > can you people test? > > thanks! > > Esteban > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Beauty is where we see it."

April 13, 2018

[ANN] New VM stables promoted

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, I just promoted new VMs as stable. This are the builds corresponding to: 201804122226 (07c6dc3) this passed the build tests so *it should* be ok. can you people test? thanks! Esteban

April 13, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

by Sean P. DeNigris

Stephane Ducasse-3 wrote > you are mixing and other concerns True, they are not the same issue. I guess the connection for me is that they are both examples of overloading a single mechanism to accomplish at best orthogonal and often conflicting goals. Right now we're using dumb strings to define: 1) method visibility (e.g. "private") 2) extension package 3) categorization. It seems way overdue for a real model. Thus I was surprised that there seemed to be resistance to change. ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html

April 13, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

by Denis Kudriashov

2018-04-12 20:46 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com>: > Eliot > > We do not want to go the road of overrides. We want to keep our > engineer task forces. > We will need support this anyway. It's very similar to loading methods extending undefined class (you already have prototype, right?). Imagine that you load project which overrides your package which already includes many changes. It should be safe to commit package. Overridden methods should not be removed. And to support it we will need model for package overrides which will bring features which Eliot describes. > > Stef > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Sean, > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com > > > > wrote: > >> > >> Stephane Ducasse-3 wrote > >> > You see. You pushed this idea and at then end we will have to handle > the > >> > mess. > >> > I do not see why we cannot simply support *. > >> > >> I'm surprised by this resistance. The *Xyz was always an ugly hack, part > >> of > >> Squeak's overloading the same mechanism for both system categorization > and > >> packaging, and exposing and limiting protocols as "just dumb strings", > all > >> of which IMHO makes the system much less understandable (no real > "private" > >> tagging, extension methods can't show up in proper protocol, etc). We're > >> not > >> in a feature freeze, so what is the problem with tackling part of this > >> mess > >> now? Sure, maybe the UI support can be improved, but let's focus on some > >> concrete suggestions. > >> > >> Denis and I just happened to be talking about this larger issue the > other > >> day. Here are a few snippets I dug up during that conversations of some > of > >> my many posts about this over the yearsâ¦ > >> > >> > we have overloaded system categories to package code for SCM. System > >> > categories should be tags (preferably multiple allowed) > >> > which offer a logical view of the system. Packages, the POV we show > now, > >> > are orthogonal and much less useful for users. > >> (edited) > >> and another: > >> > I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful > >> > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat > >> > and > >> > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want > there > >> > is a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > >> - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention > of > >> Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > >> - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > >> - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view > >> (edited) > >> and regarding Nautilus' tree package pane (when it first arrived): > >> I noticed that right now, separate packages within the same project are > >> not > >> collapsed. E.g. if I have MyProject-Core and MyProject-Platform, they > will > >> be siblings in the tree, instead of both under MyProject. It seems like > it > >> would be more useful to have > >> - MyProject > >> - Core > >> - Platform > >> in the tree > > > > > > If you and Denis are "going radical" and going to do the right thing then > > please also give thought to overrides and unloading. Allowing a package > to > > override a set of methods on load is a useful facility, fraught with > > difficulties (being able to browse the overridden versions being the main > > one). Having things organized so that the overridden versions are saved, > > don't get lost when source is rewritten, etc, etc (made much easier by > > keeping source in methods), but most importantly, get restored in the > right > > order when packages are unloaded. I believe it's as simple as > associating > > the methods that are overridden with the packages to which they belong, > and > > maintaining a load order (so that if PkgA B & C implement C>>foo, and are > > loaded in the order A, B, C, then we can compute easily that unloading C > > restores PkgB's C>>foo, and that unloading B does not affect C>>foo). > > > >> > >> > >> > it seems that the tree is primarily about chunking information into > >> > manageable pieces. > >> > >> A primary difficulty here is that packages are often divided for reasons > >> that have nothing to do with the domain model, e.g. the ubiquitous > >> MyPackage-Platform, which is an artifact of Metacello that is not all > that > >> relevant to a user wanting to understand the system. > >> > >> From the naive user perspective, if I'm exploring from the top level of > >> the > >> system, I want to see things like: > >> - CodeImport > >> - Collections > >> - Compiler > >> > >> From this perspective, the 14 entries for Collections, multiplied by a > few > >> dozen top-level categories make the list unwieldy and only marginally > less > >> daunting than the flattened list we used to have (see > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_ > Plus_or_Minus_Two ) > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> Cheers, > >> Sean > >> -- > >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837. > html > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > _,,,^..^,,,_ > > best, Eliot > >

April 12, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why can't we use * in protocol for package extension?

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Stephane, On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Eliot > > We do not want to go the road of overrides. We want to keep our > engineer task forces. > There are overrides anyway. In general overrides are unavoidable in some circumstances. The issue is not whether they exist, it's whether they work reliably. Right now they don't; they rely on changes file technology that is extremely fragile. Sean and Denis' move to reimplement extensions is an opportunity to implement overrides correctly. > > Stef > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Sean, > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com > > > > wrote: > >> > >> Stephane Ducasse-3 wrote > >> > You see. You pushed this idea and at then end we will have to handle > the > >> > mess. > >> > I do not see why we cannot simply support *. > >> > >> I'm surprised by this resistance. The *Xyz was always an ugly hack, part > >> of > >> Squeak's overloading the same mechanism for both system categorization > and > >> packaging, and exposing and limiting protocols as "just dumb strings", > all > >> of which IMHO makes the system much less understandable (no real > "private" > >> tagging, extension methods can't show up in proper protocol, etc). We're > >> not > >> in a feature freeze, so what is the problem with tackling part of this > >> mess > >> now? Sure, maybe the UI support can be improved, but let's focus on some > >> concrete suggestions. > >> > >> Denis and I just happened to be talking about this larger issue the > other > >> day. Here are a few snippets I dug up during that conversations of some > of > >> my many posts about this over the yearsâ¦ > >> > >> > we have overloaded system categories to package code for SCM. System > >> > categories should be tags (preferably multiple allowed) > >> > which offer a logical view of the system. Packages, the POV we show > now, > >> > are orthogonal and much less useful for users. > >> (edited) > >> and another: > >> > I feel more and more that the standard "Package" pane is only useful > >> > for... packaging, and when one takes off the dependency management hat > >> > and > >> > puts the user hat on (i.e. most of the time), what you really want > there > >> > is a logical view of the system. So I see three use cases: > >> - Logical view of the system - I guess this was the original intention > of > >> Categories, but has been hijacked by Monticello > >> - By project - which, as you just showed, we have now, yay! > >> - By package - the least useful, but primary (up til now), view > >> (edited) > >> and regarding Nautilus' tree package pane (when it first arrived): > >> I noticed that right now, separate packages within the same project are > >> not > >> collapsed. E.g. if I have MyProject-Core and MyProject-Platform, they > will > >> be siblings in the tree, instead of both under MyProject. It seems like > it > >> would be more useful to have > >> - MyProject > >> - Core > >> - Platform > >> in the tree > > > > > > If you and Denis are "going radical" and going to do the right thing then > > please also give thought to overrides and unloading. Allowing a package > to > > override a set of methods on load is a useful facility, fraught with > > difficulties (being able to browse the overridden versions being the main > > one). Having things organized so that the overridden versions are saved, > > don't get lost when source is rewritten, etc, etc (made much easier by > > keeping source in methods), but most importantly, get restored in the > right > > order when packages are unloaded. I believe it's as simple as > associating > > the methods that are overridden with the packages to which they belong, > and > > maintaining a load order (so that if PkgA B & C implement C>>foo, and are > > loaded in the order A, B, C, then we can compute easily that unloading C > > restores PkgB's C>>foo, and that unloading B does not affect C>>foo). > > > >> > >> > >> > it seems that the tree is primarily about chunking information into > >> > manageable pieces. > >> > >> A primary difficulty here is that packages are often divided for reasons > >> that have nothing to do with the domain model, e.g. the ubiquitous > >> MyPackage-Platform, which is an artifact of Metacello that is not all > that > >> relevant to a user wanting to understand the system. > >> > >> From the naive user perspective, if I'm exploring from the top level of > >> the > >> system, I want to see things like: > >> - CodeImport > >> - Collections > >> - Compiler > >> > >> From this perspective, the 14 entries for Collections, multiplied by a > few > >> dozen top-level categories make the list unwieldy and only marginally > less > >> daunting than the flattened list we used to have (see > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_ > Plus_or_Minus_Two ) > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> Cheers, > >> Sean > >> -- > >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837. > html > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > _,,,^..^,,,_ > > best, Eliot > > -- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot

April 12, 2018