February 2019 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo 8.0] Build #56: 2462-Remove-GLMWizard

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #56 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2463 was integrated: "2462-Remove-GLMWizard" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2463 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2462 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Feb. 8, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #55: 2460-Update-manually-resolved-dependencies-of-Collections-Tests

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #55 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2461 was integrated: "2460-Update-manually-resolved-dependencies-of-Collections-Tests" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2461 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2460 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap for Pharo 8.0

by Tim Mackinnon

+1 (with proviso there is that minimal image you can use to build up from) > On 8 Feb 2019, at 15:57, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > > >> Am 08.02.2019 um 16:47 schrieb Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com <mailto:serge.stinckwich@gmail.com>>: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:41 PM Alexandre Bergel via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>> wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages. >> >> We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. >> Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist? >> >> >> I will not be be strongly against it because I see benefits, but IHMO we need to reduce the size of Pharo image. >> Might be interesting to have charts included in the base. >> A+ >> > I donât agree. Why should we reduce the size of the default image? It should show a lot of things you can do with pharo. As everything is loaded from bootstrap we can have now every size of the image we want. I would rather see an official minimal image that people will download for building their software. But the development should contain everything that eases development and shows what pharo can do. > The critical border to me is what we provide in documentation. On the one hand we could benefit from powerful code documentation. But this could conflict with the minimum image we provide where people work on and these tools would be missing. > > Norbert > >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> Int. Research Unit on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) >> Sorbonne University (SU) >> French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) >> University of YaoundÃ© I, Cameroun >> "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." >> https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich <https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich> >

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap for Pharo 8.0

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 08.02.2019 um 16:47 schrieb Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:41 PM Alexandre Bergel via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>> wrote: > Dear All, > > At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages. > > We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. > Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist? > > > I will not be be strongly against it because I see benefits, but IHMO we need to reduce the size of Pharo image. > Might be interesting to have charts included in the base. > A+ > I donât agree. Why should we reduce the size of the default image? It should show a lot of things you can do with pharo. As everything is loaded from bootstrap we can have now every size of the image we want. I would rather see an official minimal image that people will download for building their software. But the development should contain everything that eases development and shows what pharo can do. The critical border to me is what we provide in documentation. On the one hand we could benefit from powerful code documentation. But this could conflict with the minimum image we provide where people work on and these tools would be missing. Norbert > -- > Serge Stinckwich > Int. Research Unit on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) > Sorbonne University (SU) > French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) > University of YaoundÃ© I, Cameroun > "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." > https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich <https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich>

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap for Pharo 8.0

by Serge Stinckwich

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:41 PM Alexandre Bergel via Pharo-dev < pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a > mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph > of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing > dependencies between packages. > > We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready > to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. > Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist? > > I will not be be strongly against it because I see benefits, but IHMO we need to reduce the size of Pharo image. Might be interesting to have charts included in the base. A+ -- Serge Stinckwic h Int. Research Unit on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) Sorbonne University (SU) French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) U niversity of YaoundÃ© I, Cameroun "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap for Pharo 8.0

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, Yes I forget to say that this roadmap is not everything and there are other stuff that can be done/contributed/etc. and we would like to include. And of course we have the âeveryday workâ, cleanups, enhancements, etc. Esteban > On 8 Feb 2019, at 15:47, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > > >> Am 08.02.2019 um 14:04 schrieb Alexandre Bergel via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>>: >> >> >> Von: Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com <mailto:alexandre.bergel@me.com>> >> Betreff: Aw: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap for Pharo 8.0 >> Datum: 8. Februar 2019 um 14:04:24 MEZ >> An: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages. >> >> We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. >> Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist? >> > That would be nice for the delivered image. With a revamped Connectors implementation (does anyone remember?) I would only wish a format for integrating this into pillar that would make documentation super awesome. > > Norbert > >> Cheers, >> Alexandre >> >>> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:08 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi list, >>> >>> We started Pharo 8.0 development and we wanted to share (and discuss, if needed) what is our current Roadmap for Pharo 8.0. >>> As you can see, Windows is getting some love, and also UI. >>> Anyway, here it is: >>> >>> Image >>> === >>> 1) Missing parts for headless VM to work (explained a bit later) >>> 2) We need to improve Epicea speed. And in general, source access speed. We want to remove the old changes file (since Epicea already does that works and a lot more). >>> 3) Improve Refactors >>> 4) Improve Calypso >>> 5) Introduce Spec2 (our re-work on this framework). >>> - We also want to migrate our tools to it (Inspector, Debugger, Spotter and Calypso are the remaining parts). We will see how much of this migration can be done. >>> >>> VM/Low-level side >>> === >>> 1) headless vm >>> We want to have a real headless VM and make it our default VM. >>> To it, most of the work vm-side is already made by Ronie, but there are missing parts: >>> - a build on windows >>> - image side capabilities: we use SDL2 to start the world, and it mostly works... but not completely. >>> >>> One cool thing of this is that we will -finally- be able to clean the event handling, which is ugly (and works bad). >>> >>> 2) Windows several missing/non working parts: >>> - file primitives are slow. This is because they rely in old APIs and we need to put them in "state of the art". >>> - libgit2 does not processes long paths. We workarounded the problem with tonel, but at a point we need to take care about this. Real problem with this is we need to contribute the solution to libgit2, but this is also good Open Source policy (contributing back). >>> - OSSubprocess in windows. We believe we need to extend OSSubprocess (our solution to communicate with system) to windows. And we believe is possible ;) >>> >>> 3) ThreadedFFI. >>> It is already too much time since we have this in agenda. Is time to make it real. >>> >>> 4) memory policies. >>> Tweaking the VM to enhance its memory usage is possible, but hard. We want to adopt an scheme of "memory policies" that will allow users to pick what they need. >>> >>> Process >>> === >>> 1) We will add multiple source directories to Iceberg. This is needed to allow us to put all Pharo sub-projects into an unique project without breaking modularisations. >>> >>> Others >>> === >>> 1) Launcher >>> - Launcher us getting a new UI >>> - Tests >>> - It needs to be more solid (in part, that's the reason why we want OSSubprocess in windows). >>> 2) Cargo >>> - We need to revisit cargo (a new dependency manager) and at a point decide if it will fly or not :) >>> >>> Nice to have (most probably not this version, but in our TODO) : >>> - embedded VM >>> - event driven VM >>> - what happens if we split VM into main thread and vm thread?

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap for Pharo 8.0

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 08.02.2019 um 14:04 schrieb Alexandre Bergel via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org>: > > > Von: Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> > Betreff: Aw: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap for Pharo 8.0 > Datum: 8. Februar 2019 um 14:04:24 MEZ > An: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> > > > Dear All, > > At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages. > > We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. > Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist? > That would be nice for the delivered image. With a revamped Connectors implementation (does anyone remember?) I would only wish a format for integrating this into pillar that would make documentation super awesome. Norbert > Cheers, > Alexandre > >> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:08 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi list, >> >> We started Pharo 8.0 development and we wanted to share (and discuss, if needed) what is our current Roadmap for Pharo 8.0. >> As you can see, Windows is getting some love, and also UI. >> Anyway, here it is: >> >> Image >> === >> 1) Missing parts for headless VM to work (explained a bit later) >> 2) We need to improve Epicea speed. And in general, source access speed. We want to remove the old changes file (since Epicea already does that works and a lot more). >> 3) Improve Refactors >> 4) Improve Calypso >> 5) Introduce Spec2 (our re-work on this framework). >> - We also want to migrate our tools to it (Inspector, Debugger, Spotter and Calypso are the remaining parts). We will see how much of this migration can be done. >> >> VM/Low-level side >> === >> 1) headless vm >> We want to have a real headless VM and make it our default VM. >> To it, most of the work vm-side is already made by Ronie, but there are missing parts: >> - a build on windows >> - image side capabilities: we use SDL2 to start the world, and it mostly works... but not completely. >> >> One cool thing of this is that we will -finally- be able to clean the event handling, which is ugly (and works bad). >> >> 2) Windows several missing/non working parts: >> - file primitives are slow. This is because they rely in old APIs and we need to put them in "state of the art". >> - libgit2 does not processes long paths. We workarounded the problem with tonel, but at a point we need to take care about this. Real problem with this is we need to contribute the solution to libgit2, but this is also good Open Source policy (contributing back). >> - OSSubprocess in windows. We believe we need to extend OSSubprocess (our solution to communicate with system) to windows. And we believe is possible ;) >> >> 3) ThreadedFFI. >> It is already too much time since we have this in agenda. Is time to make it real. >> >> 4) memory policies. >> Tweaking the VM to enhance its memory usage is possible, but hard. We want to adopt an scheme of "memory policies" that will allow users to pick what they need. >> >> Process >> === >> 1) We will add multiple source directories to Iceberg. This is needed to allow us to put all Pharo sub-projects into an unique project without breaking modularisations. >> >> Others >> === >> 1) Launcher >> - Launcher us getting a new UI >> - Tests >> - It needs to be more solid (in part, that's the reason why we want OSSubprocess in windows). >> 2) Cargo >> - We need to revisit cargo (a new dependency manager) and at a point decide if it will fly or not :) >> >> Nice to have (most probably not this version, but in our TODO) : >> - embedded VM >> - event driven VM >> - what happens if we split VM into main thread and vm thread? >> >> > > > >

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap for Pharo 8.0

by Reg Krock

This would be very useful. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:04 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages. > > We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. > Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist? > > Cheers, > Alexandre > >> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:08 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi list, >> >> We started Pharo 8.0 development and we wanted to share (and discuss, if needed) what is our current Roadmap for Pharo 8.0. >> As you can see, Windows is getting some love, and also UI. >> Anyway, here it is: >> >> Image >> === >> 1) Missing parts for headless VM to work (explained a bit later) >> 2) We need to improve Epicea speed. And in general, source access speed. We want to remove the old changes file (since Epicea already does that works and a lot more). >> 3) Improve Refactors >> 4) Improve Calypso >> 5) Introduce Spec2 (our re-work on this framework). >> - We also want to migrate our tools to it (Inspector, Debugger, Spotter and Calypso are the remaining parts). We will see how much of this migration can be done. >> >> VM/Low-level side >> === >> 1) headless vm >> We want to have a real headless VM and make it our default VM. >> To it, most of the work vm-side is already made by Ronie, but there are missing parts: >> - a build on windows >> - image side capabilities: we use SDL2 to start the world, and it mostly works... but not completely. >> >> One cool thing of this is that we will -finally- be able to clean the event handling, which is ugly (and works bad). >> >> 2) Windows several missing/non working parts: >> - file primitives are slow. This is because they rely in old APIs and we need to put them in "state of the art". >> - libgit2 does not processes long paths. We workarounded the problem with tonel, but at a point we need to take care about this. Real problem with this is we need to contribute the solution to libgit2, but this is also good Open Source policy (contributing back). >> - OSSubprocess in windows. We believe we need to extend OSSubprocess (our solution to communicate with system) to windows. And we believe is possible ;) >> >> 3) ThreadedFFI. >> It is already too much time since we have this in agenda. Is time to make it real. >> >> 4) memory policies. >> Tweaking the VM to enhance its memory usage is possible, but hard. We want to adopt an scheme of "memory policies" that will allow users to pick what they need. >> >> Process >> === >> 1) We will add multiple source directories to Iceberg. This is needed to allow us to put all Pharo sub-projects into an unique project without breaking modularisations. >> >> Others >> === >> 1) Launcher >> - Launcher us getting a new UI >> - Tests >> - It needs to be more solid (in part, that's the reason why we want OSSubprocess in windows). >> 2) Cargo >> - We need to revisit cargo (a new dependency manager) and at a point decide if it will fly or not :) >> >> Nice to have (most probably not this version, but in our TODO) : >> - embedded VM >> - event driven VM >> - what happens if we split VM into main thread and vm thread? >> >> > >

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap for Pharo 8.0

by Alexandre Bergel

Dear All, At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages. We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist? Cheers, Alexandre > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:08 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi list, > > We started Pharo 8.0 development and we wanted to share (and discuss, if needed) what is our current Roadmap for Pharo 8.0. > As you can see, Windows is getting some love, and also UI. > Anyway, here it is: > > Image > === > 1) Missing parts for headless VM to work (explained a bit later) > 2) We need to improve Epicea speed. And in general, source access speed. We want to remove the old changes file (since Epicea already does that works and a lot more). > 3) Improve Refactors > 4) Improve Calypso > 5) Introduce Spec2 (our re-work on this framework). > - We also want to migrate our tools to it (Inspector, Debugger, Spotter and Calypso are the remaining parts). We will see how much of this migration can be done. > > VM/Low-level side > === > 1) headless vm > We want to have a real headless VM and make it our default VM. > To it, most of the work vm-side is already made by Ronie, but there are missing parts: > - a build on windows > - image side capabilities: we use SDL2 to start the world, and it mostly works... but not completely. > > One cool thing of this is that we will -finally- be able to clean the event handling, which is ugly (and works bad). > > 2) Windows several missing/non working parts: > - file primitives are slow. This is because they rely in old APIs and we need to put them in "state of the art". > - libgit2 does not processes long paths. We workarounded the problem with tonel, but at a point we need to take care about this. Real problem with this is we need to contribute the solution to libgit2, but this is also good Open Source policy (contributing back). > - OSSubprocess in windows. We believe we need to extend OSSubprocess (our solution to communicate with system) to windows. And we believe is possible ;) > > 3) ThreadedFFI. > It is already too much time since we have this in agenda. Is time to make it real. > > 4) memory policies. > Tweaking the VM to enhance its memory usage is possible, but hard. We want to adopt an scheme of "memory policies" that will allow users to pick what they need. > > Process > === > 1) We will add multiple source directories to Iceberg. This is needed to allow us to put all Pharo sub-projects into an unique project without breaking modularisations. > > Others > === > 1) Launcher > - Launcher us getting a new UI > - Tests > - It needs to be more solid (in part, that's the reason why we want OSSubprocess in windows). > 2) Cargo > - We need to revisit cargo (a new dependency manager) and at a point decide if it will fly or not :) > > Nice to have (most probably not this version, but in our TODO) : > - embedded VM > - event driven VM > - what happens if we split VM into main thread and vm thread? > >

Feb. 8, 2019

ZipArchive

by Christophe Demarey

Hi, I did some update to ZipArchive so that it uses FileReference instead of path strings: https://github.com/demarey/pharo/commit/30120d3284cef5cd2f442f00d71da6f6aff… It also allows to use a memory file system for tests. Tests are green but Iâm not sure they cover a lot of things. If you use ZipArchive could you tell me if changes are ok for you? Thanks, Christophe

Feb. 8, 2019