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

Re: [Pharo-dev] Reach of Iceberg/git/tonel ?

by Ben Coman

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 20:40, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > Hi, > > So the future for Pharo is Iceberg/git/tonel and that is fine. > > My question however is: if I convert my external libraries to this new > format, what is the reach of this new technology ? Can people still load > code in older versions of Pharo ? I think 6.x is no problem, but what about > earlier versions ? What about other Smalltalk implementations ? What is the > official answer here ? > > A second question: suppose a repo is converted, is then still possible to > copy a version over to an old MC repo ? Just to keep it in sync. > Just to throw an idea into the mix, perhaps a read-only option for older Pharo and alternate Smalltalk implementations is to use ZIP downloads from github. https://github.com/svenvc/ston/archive/master.zip There would still be a requirement to parse Tonel, but that might be a smaller mission than supporting Iceberg or other full-Git implementation. A Metacello baseline might bootstrap Tonel to parse the unzipped file. cheers -ben

Sept. 29, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Reach of Iceberg/git/tonel ?

by Peter Uhnak

Hi, Can people still load code in older versions of Pharo ? I think 6.x is no > problem, but what about earlier versions ? You will need to update Metacello in older versions of Pharo to use Tonel. But Pharo <6.1 is officially not supported anyway. > What about other Smalltalk implementations ? What is the official answer > here ? > If they use Metacello, then you should be able to use Tonel. A second question: suppose a repo is converted, is then still possible to > copy a version over to an old MC repo ? Just to keep it in sync. > As long as Iceberg uses internally a Metacello repository for Tonel, you should be able to copy a _snapshot_. If you want to keep a "in sync" history with ancestry and stuff, then I would advise against it. The history model is quite different between git and MC and you need to make compromises going in each direction. Peter

Sept. 29, 2018

Reach of Iceberg/git/tonel ?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Hi, So the future for Pharo is Iceberg/git/tonel and that is fine. My question however is: if I convert my external libraries to this new format, what is the reach of this new technology ? Can people still load code in older versions of Pharo ? I think 6.x is no problem, but what about earlier versions ? What about other Smalltalk implementations ? What is the official answer here ? A second question: suppose a repo is converted, is then still possible to copy a version over to an old MC repo ? Just to keep it in sync. Thx, Sven

Sept. 29, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Migrated Artefact to GitHub

by Peter Uhnak

> > - you're stealing > Sorry, I absolutely did not intend the evoke the notion of "stealing". My perspective is... I am spending time to migrate someone else's code, so the last thing I want is someone burning my energy and complaining that I voided their contribution. I don't give a fuck if someone migrates my contribution and strips the authorship (and when I do care I don't need to rely on others to prove it). But I want to cover my ass from backlash from other people, because I know it will happen and I know that people will complain (which is exactly what happened to you). So preventing the appropriation of code is not about you taking credit for other person's code, but you being covered from them accusing you of it. (It probably sounds like I am pathologically defensive, but dealing with people is exhausting for me.) > * it is sending bad signals to potential contributors that we can scrub >> them anytime we want >> >> as you yourself have said: >> > @People try to avoid to piss on good will of others. >> Yet this is what it feels like to some when traces of their contributions >> are voided. >> > > And this is my third point. This "stealing" idea is mainly a matter of > manners. > Again, I didn't intend "stealing". It's about preventing people from thinking "They don't give a fuck about their contributors, so why I should give a fuck about contributing?". It can be dispiriting for them, even if they don't care about the code itself. And they will complain... and who needs that? If instead of bashing on people, we wanted to discuss on how to actually > FIX the thing, here are my 2 cents: > - From a copyright perspective it should have been enough to check the > licence file and name the contributors there > But nobody uses the license file for that, usually there's only the original author(s) / main maintainer(s). That's why the (git) history is relevant. > - The history could have been retrieved in a separate branch and then > merged (and look, we had the best of the two worlds!) > - both of the things could have been then integrated through a pull > request (luckily in less than one hour :)) > Yep. > And at the end, with the apport of everybody we could have got a > repository with history, baseline and working on pharo 7. > > Now, from a human perspective, please let's try everybody to assume the > best of the other by default. > That will just make all interactions much more healthy. > > And please, this is not particularly directed to anybody, I've seen such > remarks many times. Let's just think positive. > Problems can be fixed if we talk about them, but more specifically if we > are looking for solutions. > I will see how I can streamline the tool even further... maybe a service that will migrate entire smalltalkhub :) Peter

Sept. 29, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Migrated Artefact to GitHub

by Guillermo Polito

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Stef, > > I understand that everyone is short on time, but I consider not preserving > the history problematic for two reasons > > * it is appropriating someone else's work as one's own -- this seems > borderline illegal, or at the very least in violation of MIT license > Not really. If the contributors are specified in the copyright, is it stealing? Now, my point is manners. I got in 4/5 emails: - you're stupid because you did not use Peter's tool - you're inefficient because you took one hour to do it - you're stealing The first two points show first one big problem that I've seem many times with people and software: missing context. People think most of the time that "I would have done it better". But usually they don't take into account - the time constraints (I had one hour, and one hour I had) - the knowledge (where is the Artefact Repo?, why is it failing for Milton?, Do I know enough about metacello/streams/artefact to do it well?) - the working environment (does the person that did it have all the tools to work properly? does he have a healthy working environment? For example, I've worked on several big companies where you can find really bad environments...) - technical and not technical problems that are sometimes independent of the problem itself (take into account that for example, fighting against a metacello baseline is completely orthogonal to your tool or even iceberg, good internet connection) All these details are important also at the end, and they should be put into the balance too when we make a judgement. > * it is sending bad signals to potential contributors that we can scrub > them anytime we want > > as you yourself have said: > > @People try to avoid to piss on good will of others. > Yet this is what it feels like to some when traces of their contributions > are voided. > And this is my third point. This "stealing" idea is mainly a matter of manners. I really hope nobody here really thinks I wanted to take credit for Olivier, Guillaume or any of the other contributors. Still I preserved pointers to the original authors and their original website in google sites. But in the case somebody did think that, I removed the repository to remove any doubt. So again, I apologize if somebody felt offended, but I also prefer to not be called a thief. Now, when I do stuff I'm not thinking about "oh yes, I'm getting famous", that would be pretty sad for me :/. I do stuff because I just think it's useful. I DON'T CARE personally about artefact, and I don't want to take credit for it. I don't even care about the fu***ng 2 commits I did to port it to Pharo 7, I can tell anybody what I did so she/he can re-doit. Because I don't use Artefact. Now, Somebody wants the "credit"? I could have even amended a commit and put anybody else as author. My problem here is people assuming stealing by default, instead of assuming, for example, mistake. Imagine an alternative scenario: - X: "Hey Guille, could you add in the copyright X, and Y and Z? They also contributed to the project, you should take them into account..." - Guille: "Ah sure, sorry, this was not my intention, I'm so stupid, I forgot about Z. Commit push, done". If instead of bashing on people, we wanted to discuss on how to actually FIX the thing, here are my 2 cents: - From a copyright perspective it should have been enough to check the licence file and name the contributors there - The history could have been retrieved in a separate branch and then merged (and look, we had the best of the two worlds!) - both of the things could have been then integrated through a pull request (luckily in less than one hour :)) And at the end, with the apport of everybody we could have got a repository with history, baseline and working on pharo 7. Now, from a human perspective, please let's try everybody to assume the best of the other by default. That will just make all interactions much more healthy. And please, this is not particularly directed to anybody, I've seen such remarks many times. Let's just think positive. Problems can be fixed if we talk about them, but more specifically if we are looking for solutions.

Sept. 29, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Migrated Artefact to GitHub

by Peter Uhnak

Hi Stef, > You see you won. I was NOT one of the people responding or pushing Guille. And I don't consider Artifact not on github and people on both sides upset as winning... > Peter when I say that I do not have time, I really mean it. That's why I try offer people help with the migration whenever possible -- it is usually easy and fast for me to do, as I already know what I am doing. Peter On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:49 PM Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: > My last point on it. > if the philosophy is "I do not care about my software, but you have to > do it" then do not count me in. > > Stef > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:47 PM Stephane Ducasse > <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You see you won. Guille removed its repo and I understand him. > > I will now count how many months it will take for having artefact > > working in P7. > > > > > > > > Peter when I say that I do not have time, I really mean it. I have two > > reports to write for end of september. > > Not counting that updated pharo by example could be build anymore and > > that we need it for the mooc starting > > 8th of october, not counting that we have 4 new people arriving in the > > team and many many other things. > > > > Stef > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Stef, > > > > > > I understand that everyone is short on time, but I consider not > preserving the history problematic for two reasons > > > > > > * it is appropriating someone else's work as one's own -- this seems > borderline illegal, or at the very least in violation of MIT license > > > * it is sending bad signals to potential contributors that we can > scrub them anytime we want > > > > > > as you yourself have said: > > > > @People try to avoid to piss on good will of others. > > > Yet this is what it feels like to some when traces of their > contributions are voided. > > > > > > I've invested a ton of time to alleviate this process as much as > possible, and I can tell you for a fact that people are _really_ happy that > the authorship is preserved. > > > Not to mention that the history itself is valuable if you know how to > use it (and I very regularly look when a particular piece of code was > written when debugging issues). > > > > > > That being said, if you have issues with migrating or think that it > can be streamlined even further, > > > please let me know and I'd be happy to help you or streamline the tool > even further. > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 10:23 AM Stephane Ducasse < > stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi guille > > >> > > >> I deeply appreciated that you spent your time to bring Artefact to > Pharo 70 > > >> and in general all the positive energy you put around Pharo. > > >> I love Iceberg! and more! > > >> > > >> I quit these mailing-lists in the past because of these little > > >> aggressions, the "You should do that" > > >> I registered today again to this mailing list just to publicly talk to > > >> you, while I could come to your office (I will do it too). > > >> > > >> I did a port of Artefact to Pharo 60 a while ago and started to fix > > >> Artefact aspects I did not like and I would like to integrate my fixes > > >> to yours. Please let me know where it is. :) > > >> > > >> I do not care of the history because I prefer the future. If people > > >> care then this is their duties. Easy. If they are not happy. This is > > >> THEIR PROBLEM. You see people often tells me that I cannot control and > > >> that github is decentralised. It is! So enjoy but @People try to avoid > > >> to piss on good will of others. > > >> > > >> Now sorry Norbert your point that Guillemo would be rude because he > spent > > >> his time to help Milton and made sure that Artefact in Pharo 70 is > clearly > > >> out of context and misplaced. You see I did the same in > > >> github.com/olivierauverlot because I needed it. And this is like > that. > > >> Period. > > >> You are not happy. This is ok. You do not like it. This is ok too. > > >> > > >> This is several times that I noticed that your are not nice with > > >> emails so do the same than me: think about the impact on others. You > > >> have no idea about what guille is doing and what it is paid for and > > >> this is certainly not to fix Artefact. And you may notice that we know > > >> what is to work on others unmaintained code because we do it all the > > >> time, we even create documentation on systems we do not understand > > >> because some people are too busy to write method and class comments so > > >> imagine documentation. > > >> > > >> So I would like to thanks again guille and I would like to have > > >> artefact on Pharo 70. > > >> > > >> Stef > > >> > >

Sept. 29, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Migrated Artefact to GitHub

by Stephane Ducasse

My last point on it. if the philosophy is "I do not care about my software, but you have to do it" then do not count me in. Stef On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:47 PM Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > You see you won. Guille removed its repo and I understand him. > I will now count how many months it will take for having artefact > working in P7. > > > > Peter when I say that I do not have time, I really mean it. I have two > reports to write for end of september. > Not counting that updated pharo by example could be build anymore and > that we need it for the mooc starting > 8th of october, not counting that we have 4 new people arriving in the > team and many many other things. > > Stef > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Stef, > > > > I understand that everyone is short on time, but I consider not preserving the history problematic for two reasons > > > > * it is appropriating someone else's work as one's own -- this seems borderline illegal, or at the very least in violation of MIT license > > * it is sending bad signals to potential contributors that we can scrub them anytime we want > > > > as you yourself have said: > > > @People try to avoid to piss on good will of others. > > Yet this is what it feels like to some when traces of their contributions are voided. > > > > I've invested a ton of time to alleviate this process as much as possible, and I can tell you for a fact that people are _really_ happy that the authorship is preserved. > > Not to mention that the history itself is valuable if you know how to use it (and I very regularly look when a particular piece of code was written when debugging issues). > > > > That being said, if you have issues with migrating or think that it can be streamlined even further, > > please let me know and I'd be happy to help you or streamline the tool even further. > > > > Peter > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 10:23 AM Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi guille > >> > >> I deeply appreciated that you spent your time to bring Artefact to Pharo 70 > >> and in general all the positive energy you put around Pharo. > >> I love Iceberg! and more! > >> > >> I quit these mailing-lists in the past because of these little > >> aggressions, the "You should do that" > >> I registered today again to this mailing list just to publicly talk to > >> you, while I could come to your office (I will do it too). > >> > >> I did a port of Artefact to Pharo 60 a while ago and started to fix > >> Artefact aspects I did not like and I would like to integrate my fixes > >> to yours. Please let me know where it is. :) > >> > >> I do not care of the history because I prefer the future. If people > >> care then this is their duties. Easy. If they are not happy. This is > >> THEIR PROBLEM. You see people often tells me that I cannot control and > >> that github is decentralised. It is! So enjoy but @People try to avoid > >> to piss on good will of others. > >> > >> Now sorry Norbert your point that Guillemo would be rude because he spent > >> his time to help Milton and made sure that Artefact in Pharo 70 is clearly > >> out of context and misplaced. You see I did the same in > >> github.com/olivierauverlot because I needed it. And this is like that. > >> Period. > >> You are not happy. This is ok. You do not like it. This is ok too. > >> > >> This is several times that I noticed that your are not nice with > >> emails so do the same than me: think about the impact on others. You > >> have no idea about what guille is doing and what it is paid for and > >> this is certainly not to fix Artefact. And you may notice that we know > >> what is to work on others unmaintained code because we do it all the > >> time, we even create documentation on systems we do not understand > >> because some people are too busy to write method and class comments so > >> imagine documentation. > >> > >> So I would like to thanks again guille and I would like to have > >> artefact on Pharo 70. > >> > >> Stef > >>

Sept. 29, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Migrated Artefact to GitHub

by Stephane Ducasse

You see you won. Guille removed its repo and I understand him. I will now count how many months it will take for having artefact working in P7. Peter when I say that I do not have time, I really mean it. I have two reports to write for end of september. Not counting that updated pharo by example could be build anymore and that we need it for the mooc starting 8th of october, not counting that we have 4 new people arriving in the team and many many other things. Stef On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Stef, > > I understand that everyone is short on time, but I consider not preserving the history problematic for two reasons > > * it is appropriating someone else's work as one's own -- this seems borderline illegal, or at the very least in violation of MIT license > * it is sending bad signals to potential contributors that we can scrub them anytime we want > > as you yourself have said: > > @People try to avoid to piss on good will of others. > Yet this is what it feels like to some when traces of their contributions are voided. > > I've invested a ton of time to alleviate this process as much as possible, and I can tell you for a fact that people are _really_ happy that the authorship is preserved. > Not to mention that the history itself is valuable if you know how to use it (and I very regularly look when a particular piece of code was written when debugging issues). > > That being said, if you have issues with migrating or think that it can be streamlined even further, > please let me know and I'd be happy to help you or streamline the tool even further. > > Peter > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 10:23 AM Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi guille >> >> I deeply appreciated that you spent your time to bring Artefact to Pharo 70 >> and in general all the positive energy you put around Pharo. >> I love Iceberg! and more! >> >> I quit these mailing-lists in the past because of these little >> aggressions, the "You should do that" >> I registered today again to this mailing list just to publicly talk to >> you, while I could come to your office (I will do it too). >> >> I did a port of Artefact to Pharo 60 a while ago and started to fix >> Artefact aspects I did not like and I would like to integrate my fixes >> to yours. Please let me know where it is. :) >> >> I do not care of the history because I prefer the future. If people >> care then this is their duties. Easy. If they are not happy. This is >> THEIR PROBLEM. You see people often tells me that I cannot control and >> that github is decentralised. It is! So enjoy but @People try to avoid >> to piss on good will of others. >> >> Now sorry Norbert your point that Guillemo would be rude because he spent >> his time to help Milton and made sure that Artefact in Pharo 70 is clearly >> out of context and misplaced. You see I did the same in >> github.com/olivierauverlot because I needed it. And this is like that. >> Period. >> You are not happy. This is ok. You do not like it. This is ok too. >> >> This is several times that I noticed that your are not nice with >> emails so do the same than me: think about the impact on others. You >> have no idea about what guille is doing and what it is paid for and >> this is certainly not to fix Artefact. And you may notice that we know >> what is to work on others unmaintained code because we do it all the >> time, we even create documentation on systems we do not understand >> because some people are too busy to write method and class comments so >> imagine documentation. >> >> So I would like to thanks again guille and I would like to have >> artefact on Pharo 70. >> >> Stef >>

Sept. 29, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Migrating XML support to github/PharoContributions/

by Stephane Ducasse

Please it would be super nice. Once this is done, I would like to update the scraping booklet to use github version. Stef On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 12:19 PM Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Stef, > > XMLParser is maintained by monty (I've CCed him). > > > Now the question still remains: who is planning to migrate the XML packages. > > I'd be happy to do that (including preserving the history), unless monty wants to do it themselves. > > Peter > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 10:39 AM Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I contacted the maintainer (but I'm not sure in fact who it is :) ) >> about the XML related packages in Pharo extras. >> >> XMLParser >> XMLParserHTML >> XMLParserStAX >> XMLSupport >> XMLWriter >> XPath >> >> I did not get any answer so may be I sent a mail to the wrong email address. >> Probably. >> Now the question still remains: who is planning to migrate the XML packages. >> I was planning to do it but I will not consider history because I do >> not know how to do it and I do not have the time to do it (sorry). And >> yes I work the weekends and this is bad and this is not even on Pharo. >> >> I was planning to spend some time on the baseline and making sure that >> we can load everything and run the tests. >> So let me know. >> >> Stef >>

Sept. 29, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Migrating XML support to github/PharoContributions/

by Stephane Ducasse

Hi Sven SmalltalkHub is dying. And we will turn it readonly by January. Esteban has something else to do that to take care of it. It is a legacy. We are about to announce that we cannot create account and projects anymore. We are waiting to do that after the mooc. Now you want to use Squeaksource or SS3 I do not want. I want to use github and I guess that I do not have to explain why for real. Stef On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:27 AM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > I think that would be monty, email addresses (CC-ed) > > monty2(a)programmer.net > montykamath(a)gmail.com > > I should note that he has been very good at maintaining the XML packages (the specs of which are super complex), and as far as I know, the code works under Pharo 7 ... > > What does not work for you ? > > Sven > > > On 29 Sep 2018, at 10:38, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > I contacted the maintainer (but I'm not sure in fact who it is :) ) > > about the XML related packages in Pharo extras. > > > > XMLParser > > XMLParserHTML > > XMLParserStAX > > XMLSupport > > XMLWriter > > XPath > > > > I did not get any answer so may be I sent a mail to the wrong email address. > > Probably. > > Now the question still remains: who is planning to migrate the XML packages. > > I was planning to do it but I will not consider history because I do > > not know how to do it and I do not have the time to do it (sorry). And > > yes I work the weekends and this is bad and this is not even on Pharo. > > > > I was planning to spend some time on the baseline and making sure that > > we can load everything and run the tests. > > So let me know. > > > > Stef > > > >

Sept. 29, 2018