- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Instruments for headless images

by Eliot Miranda

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:44 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse < stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > Eliot > > does it mean that we could run headless and that if specified on the > command line we could for example get a debugger open on bugs? Because I > would love that for coral. > Exactly. In fact I think one mode is that one can get the system to snapshot when the error happens, one can then send the snapshot to a developer, and the snapshot comes up headful with the debugger. > > Stef >

Jan. 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Gofer issue

by Miguel CobÃ¡

El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 21:00 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribiÃ³: > So lets do the same and get rid of numbers. > So, name will be > > PackageName-SHA1.mcz > > everything else, like author and commit date is in package I am for this change, but as I pointed before, it would break things, or more surely, it will be the turning point between Squeak/Pharo, as the same tool couldn't be used to manage the same code. The code will need to be packaged twice, once for squeak, once for pharo. Unless that Squeak also adopt this change, that is very unlikely (well if Duke Nukem Forever has a release date now, then everything is possible :) Cheers -- Miguel CobÃ¡ http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

Jan. 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Some important news

by laurent laffont

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:26 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > wrote: > Hi guys > > some important news today, we decided that we will set up a pharo > association > so that we can promote pharo. We would like to be able to collect money and > create bounties to improve pharo. > > great Laurent > Stef >

Jan. 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Gofer issue

by Igor Stasenko

On 21 January 2011 20:57, Miguel CobÃ¡ <miguel.coba(a)gmail.com> wrote: > El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 13:55 -0600, Miguel CobÃ¡ escribiÃ³: > >> Yes we understand, but that only applies to centralized SCM like >> subversion. >> In a distributed SCM like git and monticello the number means nothing. >> e.g. there could be two branches yours and mine, and both have 345 >> commits in it. Supposing that we don't skip any number and did nothing >> weird, there would be exactly 690 versions and bot >> Package-MiguelCoba.345.mcz and Package-IgorStasenko.345.mcz. If you did >> those 345 versions in one day and I did mines on a year, one for day, >> the only way to know which one is more "recent" is with timestamps. But >> the numbers means nothing in distributed SCMs. >> >> Cheers > > See, Git don't even use a number, it uses the SHA1 of the bytes that > were changed in the repository between commits. That is the most > unnumbered-sequentially way to mark a commit. For all practical purposes > it is a random number. > So lets do the same and get rid of numbers. So, name will be PackageName-SHA1.mcz everything else, like author and commit date is in package > Cheers > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Jan. 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Gofer issue

by Igor Stasenko

On 21 January 2011 20:48, Miguel CobÃ¡ <miguel.coba(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This thing of the initial is really upsetting. > > I know that is old history and that even tools were made (monticello) > relying on them (even without specifying an accepted format, creating > more confusion) but I think that enough is enough. > > So, monticello hasn't a format for the filenames of the packages, at > least one that avoid problems due to initials, fullnames or whatever > string that the user happen to write in their image. > > For Igor, the problem is that he writes his name as Igor.Stasenko. That > chokes monticello and gofer and whatnot. I can tell you more. I am specifically using this name, because: when system asked me to enter initials, it wasn't warned me that my name is wrong or refused to use it and from that point, when something doesn't works because of my initials, this is NOT my fault. This is a fault of those tools, which put too much assumptions about what user could enter into text field when asked. So, lets fix the tools, instead of arguing , what convention should be. There should not be any convention about what i can use as my user name. I can choose to use Egyptian glyphs for initials. And don't force me to follow some scheme if its not necessary. > > Why don't we use the git way and let the user write two things, an email > and a free user name. And then sign the monticello packages with email > and in a meta-info inside the mcz (or in the commit info/message) use > the full name? > > What do you think? What it would break with a change like this? > > Cheers > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Jan. 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Gofer issue

by Miguel CobÃ¡

El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 13:55 -0600, Miguel CobÃ¡ escribiÃ³: > Yes we understand, but that only applies to centralized SCM like > subversion. > In a distributed SCM like git and monticello the number means nothing. > e.g. there could be two branches yours and mine, and both have 345 > commits in it. Supposing that we don't skip any number and did nothing > weird, there would be exactly 690 versions and bot > Package-MiguelCoba.345.mcz and Package-IgorStasenko.345.mcz. If you did > those 345 versions in one day and I did mines on a year, one for day, > the only way to know which one is more "recent" is with timestamps. But > the numbers means nothing in distributed SCMs. > > Cheers See, Git don't even use a number, it uses the SHA1 of the bytes that were changed in the repository between commits. That is the most unnumbered-sequentially way to mark a commit. For all practical purposes it is a random number. Cheers

Jan. 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Gofer issue

by Miguel CobÃ¡

El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 20:50 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribiÃ³: > On 21 January 2011 20:41, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > So what is the convention because I would like to enforce it. > > There is no need to have more mess. > > > > i prefer to have > > {PackageName}[-{subname}]*-(.*)\.{number}\.mcz > > where in (.*) could be anything and we don't really should care. > > And i'm not agree about numbering. > Number is userful way to tell that my version is more recent than > yours _without_ checking the date of file or even worse, > checking the date(s) inside a file. Yes we understand, but that only applies to centralized SCM like subversion. In a distributed SCM like git and monticello the number means nothing. e.g. there could be two branches yours and mine, and both have 345 commits in it. Supposing that we don't skip any number and did nothing weird, there would be exactly 690 versions and bot Package-MiguelCoba.345.mcz and Package-IgorStasenko.345.mcz. If you did those 345 versions in one day and I did mines on a year, one for day, the only way to know which one is more "recent" is with timestamps. But the numbers means nothing in distributed SCMs. Cheers > > > Stef > > > > > > On Jan 21, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > > > >> On 01/21/2011 08:11 AM, Miguel CobÃ¡ wrote: > >>> El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 11:05 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribiÃ³: > >>> > >>>> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer ! > >>>> > >>>> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com'; > >>>> project: 'VMMaker'; > >>>> install: 'CMakeVMMaker' > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version. > >>> > >>> That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer > >>> vs installer. > >>> > >>> The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there > >>> isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for > >>> example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As > >>> Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare > >>> timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not > >>> intended to be ordered respect to time. > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >> > >> It seems to me that that isn't quite the issue ... for Metacello I had to change the sort algorithm that Gofer used to more closely match the algorithm used by the Monticello GUI when it sorts packages ... to minimize the surprise for developers who are used to the Monticello GUI sorting order... I also had to change the branch naming scheme that was used by Gofer, because it caused problems when package names inadvertently looked like a branch to Gofer when it wasn't...Since there has never been an enforced naming convention in Monticello, there are a whole lot of incompatible naming schemes being used... > >> > >> BTW, I made these changes so that they only applied to Metacello's use of Gofer ... > >> > >> Dale > >> > > > > > > > > > -- Miguel CobÃ¡ http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

Jan. 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Gofer issue

by Igor Stasenko

On 21 January 2011 20:41, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > So what is the convention because I would like to enforce it. > There is no need to have more mess. > i prefer to have {PackageName}[-{subname}]*-(.*)\.{number}\.mcz where in (.*) could be anything and we don't really should care. And i'm not agree about numbering. Number is userful way to tell that my version is more recent than yours _without_ checking the date of file or even worse, checking the date(s) inside a file. > Stef > > > On Jan 21, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > >> On 01/21/2011 08:11 AM, Miguel CobÃ¡ wrote: >>> El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 11:05 +0100, Igor Stasenko escribiÃ³: >>> >>>> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer ! >>>> >>>> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com'; >>>> Â Â Â project: 'VMMaker'; >>>> Â Â Â install: 'CMakeVMMaker' >>>> >>>> >>>> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version. >>> >>> That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer >>> vs installer. >>> >>> The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there >>> isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for >>> example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As >>> Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare >>> timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not >>> intended to be ordered respect to time. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >> >> It seems to me that that isn't quite the issue ... for Metacello I had to change the sort algorithm that Gofer used to more closely match the algorithm used by the Monticello GUI when it sorts packages ... to minimize the surprise for developers who are used to the Monticello GUI sorting order... I also had to change the branch naming scheme that was used by Gofer, because it caused problems when package names inadvertently looked like a branch to Gofer when it wasn't...Since there has never been an enforced naming convention in Monticello, there are a whole lot of incompatible naming schemes being used... >> >> BTW, I made these changes so that they only applied to Metacello's use of Gofer ... >> >> Dale >> > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Jan. 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Instruments for headless images

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

+1 > What is interesting (and we might make that an option) is that the 'no display' error results in the image being saved 'headfull' so that you can start it up using a display to debug it (suspended process/debugger). >> >> That could be done.. but not as userful as simply report an error. >> Usually we (developers) knowing what we want to do, >> and what i don't want to see in my headless image is any attempts to >> access display/ui. > > Yeah, that's why I said it would better be an option. The first thing to do is simply report the error (and quit, or maybe that should be an option too). But many people playing with headless images (myself included) have had blocking/locked up images: having a log would be great, but adding this option to debug the cause further would be great. > > Sven > >

Jan. 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Gofer issue

by Miguel CobÃ¡

This thing of the initial is really upsetting. I know that is old history and that even tools were made (monticello) relying on them (even without specifying an accepted format, creating more confusion) but I think that enough is enough. So, monticello hasn't a format for the filenames of the packages, at least one that avoid problems due to initials, fullnames or whatever string that the user happen to write in their image. For Igor, the problem is that he writes his name as Igor.Stasenko. That chokes monticello and gofer and whatnot. Why don't we use the git way and let the user write two things, an email and a free user name. And then sign the monticello packages with email and in a meta-info inside the mcz (or in the commit info/message) use the full name? What do you think? What it would break with a change like this? Cheers El vie, 21-01-2011 a las 20:40 +0100, StÃ©phane Ducasse escribiÃ³: > +1 > > >> Okay, i found the solution. Use Installer ! > >> > >> Installer monticello http: 'http://www.squeaksource.com'; > >> project: 'VMMaker'; > >> install: 'CMakeVMMaker' > >> > >> > >> works well for me and loads correct *latest* version. > > > > That isn't a solution and open again a gratuitous discussion about gofer > > vs installer. > > > > The point is, in a distributed SCM system, like Monticello is, there > > isn't a latest version. At least not by the traditional (suversion for > > example) way of knowing the monotone numeric integer version number. As > > Lukas said, the only way to know something is latest is to compare > > timestamps, but not version numbers or commits id. They aren't not > > intended to be ordered respect to time. > > > > Cheers > > > > -- > > Miguel CobÃ¡ > > http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz > > http://miguel.leugim.com.mx > > > > > > > > > > -- Miguel CobÃ¡ http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

Jan. 21, 2011