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

Re: [Pharo-dev] ProcessBrowser does not auto-update itself by default? Should it?

by ducasse

Thomas I asked Gina to rewrite it in Spec (but it can be too complex because the code does not have a clear model) so if you want to help her, go ahead. Stef > On 4 Feb 2019, at 11:47, Thomas Dupriez <tdupriez(a)ens-paris-saclay.fr> wrote: > > Hello, > > The Process Browser does not auto-updates itself by default to show new processes and hide processes that stopped. > > Is there a specific reason for that? The first time I opened it I kind of expected it would auto-update itself, and I think this may be a more "intuitive" behaviour that no auto-updates by default. What do you think? > > Getting auto-updates is "easy" (there is no button in the UI (something to improve?), but one can call the "toggleAutoUpdate" method to get this behaviour). My question is about it not being default. > > Thomas > >

Feb. 5, 2019

Camp Smalltalk Charlotte 2019 Update!

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Hello Smalltalkers, Camp Smalltalk Charlotte 2019 is looking good! At this point we are over half full. Looks like some cool demos using different Smalltalk dialects are already lining up. A google groups forum has been created for attendees so everyone can collaborate beforehand. Attendees will get an invitation for group access shortly after registering. This event is happening March 29th â March 31st 2019 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Please register for the event as spots will be limited. Event details and registration info are available at the following link: Camp Smalltalk Charlotte 2019 <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eventbrite.com%2Fe%2Fcamp-sm…> Hope to see you there! -- Mariano https://twitter.com/MartinezPeck http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Feb. 4, 2019

iceberg: merging branches just at the git level without changing code in the image

by Andrei Chis

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. 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? Cheers, Andrei

Feb. 4, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] ProcessBrowser does not auto-update itself by default? Should it?

by Alistair Grant

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 11:55, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > I believe the reason not to make auto updating the default, is because #updateProcessList is a bit heavy (it calls a GC, does an #allSubInstances, and it is a thread itself). Maybe that is no longer the case ? > > But adding a button to make auto updating easier to start would probably help. > > Maybe a button bar for more common actions (like terminate) ? > > > On 4 Feb 2019, at 11:47, Thomas Dupriez <tdupriez(a)ens-paris-saclay.fr> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > The Process Browser does not auto-updates itself by default to show new processes and hide processes that stopped. > > > > Is there a specific reason for that? The first time I opened it I kind of expected it would auto-update itself, and I think this may be a more "intuitive" behaviour that no auto-updates by default. What do you think? > > > > Getting auto-updates is "easy" (there is no button in the UI (something to improve?), but one can call the "toggleAutoUpdate" method to get this behaviour). My question is about it not being default. You can right click on a process and "Turn on auto-update", which is Ctrl-A (on linux). A button bar would be more friendly. Cheers, Alistair

Feb. 4, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] ProcessBrowser does not auto-update itself by default? Should it?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

I believe the reason not to make auto updating the default, is because #updateProcessList is a bit heavy (it calls a GC, does an #allSubInstances, and it is a thread itself). Maybe that is no longer the case ? But adding a button to make auto updating easier to start would probably help. Maybe a button bar for more common actions (like terminate) ? > On 4 Feb 2019, at 11:47, Thomas Dupriez <tdupriez(a)ens-paris-saclay.fr> wrote: > > Hello, > > The Process Browser does not auto-updates itself by default to show new processes and hide processes that stopped. > > Is there a specific reason for that? The first time I opened it I kind of expected it would auto-update itself, and I think this may be a more "intuitive" behaviour that no auto-updates by default. What do you think? > > Getting auto-updates is "easy" (there is no button in the UI (something to improve?), but one can call the "toggleAutoUpdate" method to get this behaviour). My question is about it not being default. > > Thomas > >

Feb. 4, 2019

ProcessBrowser does not auto-update itself by default? Should it?

by Thomas Dupriez

Hello, The Process Browser does not auto-updates itself by default to show new processes and hide processes that stopped. Is there a specific reason for that? The first time I opened it I kind of expected it would auto-update itself, and I think this may be a more "intuitive" behaviour that no auto-updates by default. What do you think? Getting auto-updates is "easy" (there is no button in the UI (something to improve?), but one can call the "toggleAutoUpdate" method to get this behaviour). My question is about it not being default. Thomas

Feb. 4, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #51: OpalCompiler-Core spelling in class comment

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #51 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2436 was integrated: "OpalCompiler-Core spelling in class comment" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2436 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. 4, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] ConfigurationOfGrease for Pharo8

by Guillermo Polito

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 9:28 AM Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Stef, > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 09:20, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: > > > > Hi alistair > > > > >> HI alistair > > >> > > >> you should use the latest pillar. Was dev-7 and now it is 70 > > >> because this is around six months that we removed the dependency to > grease. > > > > > > I can see the dev-7 branch (which is what I'm using in Pharo 8). > > > > > > And this is the one that broke? Strange. > > Now we did not try Pillar in Pharo 80. > > Could you try in Pharo70? > > No, the smalltalkhub version was "broken", but that's to be expected > since it was out of date. > > The dev-7 branch loads fine in Pharo 8. > > > > But what do you mean by "now it is 70â? > > > > I thought that guillermo changed the dev-7 branch. > Nope, I think that name is good, and then we manage releases using tags. We have the following branches: [image: image.png] > > Ok I checked and this is a tag. 7.4.1 > > And that answers my question. > > Thanks, > Alistair > > -- 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. 4, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] ConfigurationOfGrease for Pharo8

by Alistair Grant

Hi Stef, On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 09:20, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: > > Hi alistair > > >> HI alistair > >> > >> you should use the latest pillar. Was dev-7 and now it is 70 > >> because this is around six months that we removed the dependency to grease. > > > > I can see the dev-7 branch (which is what I'm using in Pharo 8). > > > And this is the one that broke? Strange. > Now we did not try Pillar in Pharo 80. > Could you try in Pharo70? No, the smalltalkhub version was "broken", but that's to be expected since it was out of date. The dev-7 branch loads fine in Pharo 8. > > But what do you mean by "now it is 70â? > > I thought that guillermo changed the dev-7 branch. > Ok I checked and this is a tag. 7.4.1 And that answers my question. Thanks, Alistair

Feb. 4, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] ConfigurationOfGrease for Pharo8

by ducasse

Hi alistair >> HI alistair >> >> you should use the latest pillar. Was dev-7 and now it is 70 >> because this is around six months that we removed the dependency to grease. > > I can see the dev-7 branch (which is what I'm using in Pharo 8). And this is the one that broke? Strange. Now we did not try Pillar in Pharo 80. Could you try in Pharo70? > But what do you mean by "now it is 70â? I thought that guillermo changed the dev-7 branch. Ok I checked and this is a tag. 7.4.1 > > Thanks, > Alistair >

Feb. 4, 2019