- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo-project] [update 1.1] #11381

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

11381 ----- - Issue 2491: Rewrite Author prompt text similar to PharoCore 1.0. Thanks Miguel. - Issue 2492: choose default browser should be a setting. Thanks Alain - Issue 2475: StringTest#testUnCategorizedMethods fails. Thanks laurent Stef

May 31, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Recompile all in ImageForDevelopers ?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I think that what would be good is indeed that we check that systematically so that we finally identify the changes problem. Now did you check if the changes are modified? Apparently not. Stef On May 31, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > Hi folks. The official Pharo 1.0 has a little bug that you can see here: > > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2341 > > In order to avoid such problems, I though about evaluating "Compiler recompileAll" during the ImageForDeveloper >> install method > With this, when I or you are using ConfigurationOfPharo to build a Dev image, you will automatically realize there is a problem. > > What do you think? > > Cheers > > Mariano > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

May 31, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Trip to Pharo land

by Adrian Lienhard

Thanks for the suggestions, GÃ¶ran. I've updated the frontpage of the website. Adrian On May 31, 2010, at 00:02 , GÃ¶ran Krampe wrote: > Hi! > > On 05/30/2010 11:17 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> So much discussion about that little post... :) >>> >>> On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>>> Yes but in that case >>>> try 1.0 >>>> try 1.1 alpha >>> >>> Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :) >> >> I do not know what you are implying. > > Eh, "top posting". See this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style > > So it was not an implication of anything, I just joked a little. > > ...but I see in this post that you are interleaving instead :) > >> But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo >> so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver >> and if all these stuff make sense. >> Conclusion >> - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes >> - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple. >> - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now. > > Yeah, I am all with you. > > Just wondering if... well, I chose 1.0 since it is clearly what the website "wants me to do" so to speak. And 1.1 is mentioned as "bleeding edge" etc. > > But if you think I will have a smoother ride in 1.1, then perhaps the site should somehow indicate that. But again, I really don't know if that is a good idea. > >>> Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing". >>> >>> And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I? >>> > >> I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :) >> >> Yes it really is. >> Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better. > > Then perhaps you *should* write that on the website somehow. Like: > > "Even though 1.1 is still in alpha development we feel it is even in its current state a much better environment than 1.0 for development. But it is of course not yet a stable baseline." > > Also, if you only backport showstoppers (and not "bugs") then 1.0 is as of today not even preferrable from a stability standpoint, or? > > regards, GÃ¶ran > > PS. I am really trying to be constructive here, these problems are generic in nature and Squeak.org suffer from the exact same issues of course - devel vs stable etc. Just curious how Pharo should "talk to newcomers" about it. > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

May 31, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Recompile all in ImageForDevelopers ?

by Mariano Martinez Peck

2010/5/31 laurent laffont <laurent.laffont(a)gmail.com> > 2010/5/31 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> > >> Hi folks. The official Pharo 1.0 has a little bug that you can see here: >> >> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2341 >> >> In order to avoid such problems, I though about evaluating "Compiler >> recompileAll" during the ImageForDeveloper >> install method >> With this, when I or you are using ConfigurationOfPharo to build a Dev >> image, you will automatically realize there is a problem. >> >> What do you think? >> > > How much time does it take ? > MessageTally time: [Compiler recompileAll] -> 116142 so...2 minutes ;) > > Laurent Laffont > > http://pharocasts.blogspot.com/ > http://magaloma.blogspot.com/ > > >> >> Cheers >> >> Mariano >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

May 31, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Recompile all in ImageForDevelopers ?

by laurent laffont

2010/5/31 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> > Hi folks. The official Pharo 1.0 has a little bug that you can see here: > > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2341 > > In order to avoid such problems, I though about evaluating "Compiler > recompileAll" during the ImageForDeveloper >> install method > With this, when I or you are using ConfigurationOfPharo to build a Dev > image, you will automatically realize there is a problem. > > What do you think? > How much time does it take ? Laurent Laffont http://pharocasts.blogspot.com/ http://magaloma.blogspot.com/ > > Cheers > > Mariano > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

May 31, 2010

[Pharo-project] Recompile all in ImageForDevelopers ?

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Hi folks. The official Pharo 1.0 has a little bug that you can see here: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2341 In order to avoid such problems, I though about evaluating "Compiler recompileAll" during the ImageForDeveloper >> install method With this, when I or you are using ConfigurationOfPharo to build a Dev image, you will automatically realize there is a problem. What do you think? Cheers Mariano

May 31, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Change Author full name prompt text in PharoCore 1.1

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

thanks! On May 31, 2010, at 7:35 AM, Miguel Enrique CobÃ¡ Martinez wrote: > I have changed the text of the message prompt and the text of the > setting for author full name in PharoCore 1.1 so that is similar > (shorter) to the text of PharoCore 1.0. > > Issue: > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2491 > > fixed in PharoInbox in: > > SLICE-rewriteAuthorMessageText-MiguelCoba.2 > > Ready for verification and integration. > > Cheers > -- > Miguel CobÃ¡ > http://miguel.leugim.com.mx > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

May 31, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Trip to Pharo land

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

got it well don't worry. Stef On May 31, 2010, at 12:02 AM, GÃ¶ran Krampe wrote: > Hi! > > On 05/30/2010 11:17 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> So much discussion about that little post... :) >>> >>> On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>>> Yes but in that case >>>> try 1.0 >>>> try 1.1 alpha >>> >>> Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :) >> >> I do not know what you are implying. > > Eh, "top posting". See this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style > > So it was not an implication of anything, I just joked a little. > > ...but I see in this post that you are interleaving instead :) > >> But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo >> so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver >> and if all these stuff make sense. >> Conclusion >> - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes >> - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple. >> - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now. > > Yeah, I am all with you. > > Just wondering if... well, I chose 1.0 since it is clearly what the website "wants me to do" so to speak. And 1.1 is mentioned as "bleeding edge" etc. > > But if you think I will have a smoother ride in 1.1, then perhaps the site should somehow indicate that. But again, I really don't know if that is a good idea. > >>> Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing". >>> >>> And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I? >>> > >> I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :) >> >> Yes it really is. >> Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better. > > Then perhaps you *should* write that on the website somehow. Like: > > "Even though 1.1 is still in alpha development we feel it is even in its current state a much better environment than 1.0 for development. But it is of course not yet a stable baseline." > > Also, if you only backport showstoppers (and not "bugs") then 1.0 is as of today not even preferrable from a stability standpoint, or? > > regards, GÃ¶ran > > PS. I am really trying to be constructive here, these problems are generic in nature and Squeak.org suffer from the exact same issues of course - devel vs stable etc. Just curious how Pharo should "talk to newcomers" about it. > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

May 31, 2010

[Pharo-project] Change Author full name prompt text in PharoCore 1.1

by Miguel Enrique CobÃ¡ Martinez

I have changed the text of the message prompt and the text of the setting for author full name in PharoCore 1.1 so that is similar (shorter) to the text of PharoCore 1.0. Issue: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2491 fixed in PharoInbox in: SLICE-rewriteAuthorMessageText-MiguelCoba.2 Ready for verification and integration. Cheers -- Miguel CobÃ¡ http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

May 31, 2010

Re: [Pharo-project] Trip to Pharo land

by GÃ¶ran Krampe

Hi! On 05/30/2010 11:17 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> Hi! >> >> So much discussion about that little post... :) >> >> On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>> Yes but in that case >>> try 1.0 >>> try 1.1 alpha >> >> Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :) > > I do not know what you are implying. Eh, "top posting". See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style So it was not an implication of anything, I just joked a little. ...but I see in this post that you are interleaving instead :) > But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo > so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver > and if all these stuff make sense. > Conclusion > - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes > - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple. > - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now. Yeah, I am all with you. Just wondering if... well, I chose 1.0 since it is clearly what the website "wants me to do" so to speak. And 1.1 is mentioned as "bleeding edge" etc. But if you think I will have a smoother ride in 1.1, then perhaps the site should somehow indicate that. But again, I really don't know if that is a good idea. >> Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing". >> >> And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I? >> > I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :) > > Yes it really is. > Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better. Then perhaps you *should* write that on the website somehow. Like: "Even though 1.1 is still in alpha development we feel it is even in its current state a much better environment than 1.0 for development. But it is of course not yet a stable baseline." Also, if you only backport showstoppers (and not "bugs") then 1.0 is as of today not even preferrable from a stability standpoint, or? regards, GÃ¶ran PS. I am really trying to be constructive here, these problems are generic in nature and Squeak.org suffer from the exact same issues of course - devel vs stable etc. Just curious how Pharo should "talk to newcomers" about it.

May 30, 2010