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

Re: [Pharo-dev] pharo.prg is down

by ducasse

Do we have a document somwhere to know what to do if knowing people are in vacation? > On 5 Feb 2019, at 13:57, Christophe Demarey <christophe.demarey(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > Thanks for the report. > I restarted the service. It is now back on line. > > Cheers, > Christophe > >> Le 5 fÃ©vr. 2019 Ã 13:41, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> a Ã©crit : >> >> Hi, >> >> pharo.org looks down: >> https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/pharo.org >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> -- >> www.feenk.com >> >> âHow do you feenk today?" >> >> > >

Feb. 5, 2019

[ANN] Pharo Sprints first half 2019

by Marcus Denker

We organise one Pharo âSprintâ per month were we meet to work on boring issue tracker entries together. Goals of the next sprints: - Fix issues for Pharo8 - Backport important fixes to Pharo7 Remotely, you can join us on Discord. During the sprint, we will try to synchronize local and remote Pharo sprinters. In the past people organised local sprints at the same time (e.g. Santiago/Chile). See here for more infos: http://pharo.org/contribute-events There will be an event on the association website for each sprint. The next dates are: - 22 Feb https://association.pharo.org/event-3253818 - 29 Mar https://association.pharo.org/event-3253842 - 26 Apr https://association.pharo.org/event-3253846 - 31 May https://association.pharo.org/event-3253848 - 28 Jun https://association.pharo.org/event-3253850 For more Pharo Event, have a look at the Events Page: https://association.pharo.org/events

Feb. 5, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] An article that talks about Pharo in a portal from MÃ©xico

by Ben Coman

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 17:58, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > https://www.unocero.com/smartphones/pharo-7-internet-de-las-cosas/ > Nice. Google translate works wonders. > 2. IoT has a lot of attention at this moment. > IoT is new to a lot of people, which presents an opportunity since people are more receptive to new ideas when they are already in an exploring mode. cheers -ben

Feb. 5, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] pharo.prg is down

by Christophe Demarey

Thanks for the report. I restarted the service. It is now back on line. Cheers, Christophe > Le 5 fÃ©vr. 2019 Ã 13:41, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> a Ã©crit : > > Hi, > > pharo.org looks down: > https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/pharo.org > > Cheers, > Doru > > -- > www.feenk.com > > âHow do you feenk today?" > >

Feb. 5, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] pharo.prg is down

by Esteban Maringolo

Is up again. Esteban A. Maringolo El mar., 5 feb. 2019 a las 9:42, Tudor Girba (<tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>) escribiÃ³: > > Hi, > > pharo.org looks down: > https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/pharo.org > > Cheers, > Doru > > -- > www.feenk.com > > âHow do you feenk today?" > >

Feb. 5, 2019

pharo.prg is down

by Tudor Girba

Hi, pharo.org looks down: https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/pharo.org Cheers, Doru -- www.feenk.com âHow do you feenk today?"

Feb. 5, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] iceberg: merging branches just at the git level without changing code in the image

by Guillermo Polito

Hi, On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:19 PM Andrei Chis <chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Currently in Iceberg to merge a branch into another, we need to checkout > the branch into which we want to merge and then do the merge. > For the moment it is done that way because - every commit is first written in disk before moved to the index and then commited - a merge, unless fast forward, will need to create a new commit, and potentially if there is a merge conflict it requires some manual intervention Also, we have decided for the moment to follow git's semantics to avoid MORE terminology/technological mismatch than what we have. We could implement the merge operation to work on any two arbitrary branches, but still in case of merge conflict it's not so straight forward. We have discussed in Esug with some guys, and there would be the possibility to have automatic merge strategies like: - take all incoming - take all outgoing But still there are cases where the user would like a mix of them, and even do manual modifications. Checking out a branch also updates the code in the image, which when > needing to perform automatic releases on a branch can cause issues. > > Is there already a way in Iceberg to switch to a branch (for example > `release`) and then merge another branch (for example `master`) into it > without updating any code in the image? > The use-case is that the user is on the `master` branch and needs to merge > `master` into `release` without changing any code in the image. > Yes, when you checkout a branch, there is a combobox: [image: image.png] You can choose the last option for it. These are called in iceberg CheckoutStrategies, and though they are so far only used for checkouts, they could be used for merge toos. > > I found LGitRepository>>#merge:, but it seems not to be used anywhere in > the image. > > Another way would be to implement something like the method below. This: > - calculates what changes need to be merged > - always takes what is on the left branch (in this case what is on > master overrides what is on release) > - does not call loadChangesInWorkingCopy: to update the working copy as > the code is already in the image > - refreshes the dirty packages in case there are changes between what is > on the image and what is on disk > > ``` > IceMerge>>#executeWithAcceptingLeftOnConflictAndWithoutImageUpdate > | commitToAdvance | > mergeCommit validateCanMerge. > self isAlreadyMerged ifTrue: [ ^ self ]. > > self calculateChanges. > self conflictsDo: [ :operation | > operation selectLeft. > ]. > commitToAdvance := self updateHead. > "Do not update the working copy" > "repository workingCopy loadChangesInWorkingCopy: self > changesToWorkingCopyTree." > repository workingCopy refreshDirtyPackages. > ^ commitToAdvance > ``` > > Could something like the above solution work? Or are there other issues to > take into account? > I think something like that would work... But it would be nice to extract those things to be more reusable? - a conflict resolution strategy (with a default "do not solve conflict") - a checkout strategy (with a checkout in image strategy). Anyway you go, I'd write some tests about that, since a broken merge can lead to super fuzzy behaviour (like losing code...) :) > Cheers, > Andrei > > > > -- Guille Polito Research Engineer Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille CRIStAL - UMR 9189 French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr <http://www.cnrs.fr>* *Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io> *Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13

Feb. 5, 2019

by Esteban Lorenzano

https://www.unocero.com/smartphones/pharo-7-internet-de-las-cosas/ <https://www.unocero.com/smartphones/pharo-7-internet-de-las-cosas/> Just presenting version 7. Couple of observations: 1. We reach farther than we think. 2. IoT has a lot of attention at this moment. Esteban

Feb. 5, 2019

[Pharo 7.0] Build #147: Add scrollSelectionIntoView

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #147 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2428 was integrated: "Add scrollSelectionIntoView" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2428 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/patch Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Feb. 5, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] iceberg: merging branches just at the git level without changing code in the image

by Ben Coman

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:19, Andrei Chis <chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Currently in Iceberg to merge a branch into another, we need to checkout > the branch into which we want to merge and then do the merge. > Checking out a branch also updates the code in the image, which when > needing to perform automatic releases on a branch can cause issues. > > Is there already a way in Iceberg to switch to a branch (for example > `release`) and then merge another branch (for example `master`) into it > without updating any code in the image? > The use-case is that the user is on the `master` branch and needs to merge > `master` into `release` without changing any code in the image. > Another use case for this might be where I recently wanted to resurrect an old PR to contribute to Pharo 8 and loading the old code broke the image. I'd to update the PR by merging master into it without loading it. Rebasing the old PR onto master would be even better. Perhaps the existing <Merge> button becomes a <Merge & Load> button and the <Merge> button presents a dialog for any any-to-any disc-only merge (default would be "selected" commit into the image's "current" commit) cheers -ben

Feb. 5, 2019