- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Workspace API

by Keith Hodges

StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > I know. I just want to tell you that nothing is easy. > Now saying that we do not pay attention is not exact. > But really beside integrating fixes and cleaning etoy I have no time. > > Stef > > I thought that MinimalMorphic was released 2 years ago? Keith

Feb. 12, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Workspace API

by Keith Hodges

> Our goal is to make progress. Squeak is dying don't see it? > The reason it is dying is because once anyone starts a significant project they are stuck with the same image that they started with. Thus everyone gets left along the path of progress. They keep up or get left behind to fork their own little world. Pharo perpetuates and exacerbates this problem through its philosophy. You could have picked a slice of squeak, instituted a project to improve it, and then contributed that improved slice back to everyone, and so on. The kernel image itself is not that important to getting actual work done, once you eliminate certain headaches like FileDirectory (Rio was my choice of the section of the kernel to improve). Sure, if you are doing academic little projects, you might be constantly irked by the lack of change in the kernel. If you are working on a big project with clients breathing down your neck, you just get on with it. The cause (since captials are deemed to be rude, sorry Paul) of squeak dying is that those who move it forward are too busy making progress and they dont think about the users of older images. How many of our potential millions of future xo users will be taking their future xo software apart to find Pharo inside? >> And you are ignoring those tools, because you dont see them as >> important. >> > I would love to have a buildServer and also run automatically > SmallLint rules on the code > now either pharo does not exist because we build those tools or pharo > exist. So please .... explain this to me.... why cant. Project A working on the kernel and not the tools, fit together with project B, working on the tools and not the kernel? Looks simple on paper doesn't it. Think it over, A+B = AB, and B + A = BA, hmm it works, infact its kind of obvious. Now why is it that this doesn't work I wonder? Please explain this to me? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is because Project A is working on the kernel, and is for some reason forking the loadable tools (which should be outside of their remit) thus absorbing all of the expertise, making things more difficult for everyone. Project B then gives up and goes off to do something else, because they realise that 3 years of efforts trying to open up repositories and to encourage people to contribute collaboratively to tools as shared resources over the whole community of projects, is a total and utter waste of time. All the repo's on Project B are public, and anyone can contribute, however the majority of Project A contributors don't join in. > buildserver and this is why > I have been working on the Build server since Feb 2007. That was where the idea for Rio originally came from. The ruby version of Bob did work but it was tricky to set up. The smalltalk one only needs one day of work to complete, and I said that 3 months ago. However since no-one from your team seems willing to join on fixing up MC1.5 etc I was left to spend yesterday fixing an MC1.5 bug. Perhaps there is no point in doing that one day of work on Bob because no-one will bother looking at it anyway. > we started to write on Installer (and you know that this is not only > for pharo so you should be happy). > You did? > Now you should ask yourself the question why people are not all using > your tool extensions. > Actually they are. If they were not I wouldn't be here now. > Conservatism? stupidity? lack of time? lack of trust? Dont'care? > None of the above. Many people load LPF and get on with the job they have to do. Keith

Feb. 12, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] isActive and isEnable

by Lukas Renggli

#isActive would probably better be called #isVisible. Lukas On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Alexandre Bergel <Alexandre.Bergel(a)inria.fr> wrote: > Dear OBers, > > What is the difference between these two methods? > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

Feb. 12, 2009

[Pharo-project] isActive and isEnable

by Alexandre Bergel

Dear OBers, What is the difference between these two methods? Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Feb. 12, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Unwanted rude behaviour (was Re: Workspace API)

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Paul this is not a problem. I understand what keith is saying but we have a bootstrap problem: how can people help building better extensions. stef On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Provoost, P (Paul) wrote: > Keith, > > I think that you should not raise your voice the way you do in this > mailing list. > Please don't be rude in this list, it spoils the positive and > friendly atmosphere of it. > If you want to quarrel with Stef, then please do it in private mails. > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > Keith wrote: > >> You still dont get it do you. *** really look at it *** means pick >> over >> the carcass. Adopting it means JOINING IN AND MAKING EVERYTHING >> BETTER >> FOR EVERY ONE. > >> You guys have the expertise to fix things I dont, and test things >> that I >> dont. I dont have the skill to meet your high coding standards. I am >> working on comercial projects and I need something that WORKS not >> something that looks pretty. I used a code formatter for 6 years, so >> when I see code I dont see that it needs formatting. It looks ok to >> me. > >> If you adopt it, then your whole team of testers and experts get to >> contribute, and everyone benefits. > >> The reason I am causing trouble, and raising my voice is not that you >> wont use my stuff, its that you will not participate in any >> collaborative attitude AT ALL. Monticello IS NOT YOUR PROJECT, it is >> EVERYONES. It is the PEOPLES MONTICELLO. Your approach is killing >> that >> vision, and taking NEEDED (according to you private emailer) >> expertise >> away from that vision. > > >> Keith > > >> p.s. It doesnt matter if the code is crap, un-formatted crap. It cant >> possibly be worse than MC1.0 and the amount of cruft I refactored. > > > _____________________________________________________________ > > This email (including any attachments to it) is confidential, > legally privileged, subject to copyright and is sent for the > personal attention of the intended recipient only. If you have > received this email in error, please advise us immediately and > delete it. You are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing > or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information > is strictly prohibited. Although we have taken reasonable > precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, we > cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the > viruses in this email or attachments. We exclude any liability for > the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions > taken on the basis of the information provided in this email or its > attachments, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in > writing. If this email contains an offer, that should be considered > as an invitation to treat. > _____________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Feb. 12, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Workspace API

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> You still dont get it do you. *** really look at it *** means pick >> over > the carcass. Adopting it means JOINING IN AND MAKING EVERYTHING BETTER > FOR EVERY ONE. I know. > > > You guys have the expertise to fix things I dont, I'm not sure :) > and test things that I > dont. I dont have the skill to meet your high coding standards. I am > working on comercial projects and I need something that WORKS not > something that looks pretty. I used a code formatter for 6 years, so > when I see code I dont see that it needs formatting. It looks ok to > me. Ok > If you adopt it, then your whole team of testers and experts get to > contribute, and everyone benefits. > > > The reason I am causing trouble, and raising my voice is not that you > wont use my stuff, its that you will not participate in any > collaborative attitude AT ALL. Monticello IS NOT YOUR PROJECT, it is > EVERYONES. It is the PEOPLES MONTICELLO. Your approach is killing > that > vision, and taking NEEDED (according to you private emailer) expertise > away from that vision. I do not think so but I understand what you are saying. Now this is not that easy. > p.s. It doesnt matter if the code is crap, un-formatted crap. It cant > possibly be worse than MC1.0 and the amount of cruft I refactored. Probably. I'm not against, I just do not have enough cycles and I imagine that this is the same for other people. Looking/integrating part of Kernel extensions SUnit + MC1.5 is still on my stack but my stack is long. > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Feb. 12, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Workspace API

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I know. I just want to tell you that nothing is easy. Now saying that we do not pay attention is not exact. But really beside integrating fixes and cleaning etoy I have no time. Stef On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Keith Hodges wrote: > StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> About MC1.5 here is what I received as a private email. >> So I imagine that the person is a bit too negative too but you can >> understand that we pay attention and need time >> to ***really*** look at it. >> >> I hope you don't include Monticello 1.5 in Pharo. All code that we >> have seen so far from Keith cases trouble. I have nothing to support >> this except the people reporting problems with Monticello 1.5. >> >> Stef >> >> > Well thats incredibly stupid. > > I have NO KNOWLEDGE of these so called problems. What are they were > are > they? > > If the anonymous detracter will tell me what those problems are we can > fix them. We aim to be very responsive. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Feb. 12, 2009

[Pharo-project] Unwanted rude behaviour (was Re: Workspace API)

by Provoost, P (Paul)

Keith, I think that you should not raise your voice the way you do in this mailing list. Please don't be rude in this list, it spoils the positive and friendly atmosphere of it. If you want to quarrel with Stef, then please do it in private mails. Thanks, Paul Keith wrote: >You still dont get it do you. *** really look at it *** means pick over >the carcass. Adopting it means JOINING IN AND MAKING EVERYTHING BETTER >FOR EVERY ONE. >You guys have the expertise to fix things I dont, and test things that I >dont. I dont have the skill to meet your high coding standards. I am >working on comercial projects and I need something that WORKS not >something that looks pretty. I used a code formatter for 6 years, so >when I see code I dont see that it needs formatting. It looks ok to me. >If you adopt it, then your whole team of testers and experts get to >contribute, and everyone benefits. >The reason I am causing trouble, and raising my voice is not that you >wont use my stuff, its that you will not participate in any >collaborative attitude AT ALL. Monticello IS NOT YOUR PROJECT, it is >EVERYONES. It is the PEOPLES MONTICELLO. Your approach is killing that >vision, and taking NEEDED (according to you private emailer) expertise >away from that vision. >Keith >p.s. It doesnt matter if the code is crap, un-formatted crap. It cant >possibly be worse than MC1.0 and the amount of cruft I refactored. _____________________________________________________________ This email (including any attachments to it) is confidential, legally privileged, subject to copyright and is sent for the personal attention of the intended recipient only. If you have received this email in error, please advise us immediately and delete it. You are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, we cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the viruses in this email or attachments. We exclude any liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided in this email or its attachments, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. If this email contains an offer, that should be considered as an invitation to treat. _____________________________________________________________

Feb. 12, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Workspace API

by Keith Hodges

StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > About MC1.5 here is what I received as a private email. > So I imagine that the person is a bit too negative too but you can > understand that we pay attention and need time > to ***really*** look at it. > > I hope you don't include Monticello 1.5 in Pharo. All code that we > have seen so far from Keith cases trouble. I have nothing to support > this except the people reporting problems with Monticello 1.5. > > Stef > You still dont get it do you. *** really look at it *** means pick over the carcass. Adopting it means JOINING IN AND MAKING EVERYTHING BETTER FOR EVERY ONE. You guys have the expertise to fix things I dont, and test things that I dont. I dont have the skill to meet your high coding standards. I am working on comercial projects and I need something that WORKS not something that looks pretty. I used a code formatter for 6 years, so when I see code I dont see that it needs formatting. It looks ok to me. If you adopt it, then your whole team of testers and experts get to contribute, and everyone benefits. The reason I am causing trouble, and raising my voice is not that you wont use my stuff, its that you will not participate in any collaborative attitude AT ALL. Monticello IS NOT YOUR PROJECT, it is EVERYONES. It is the PEOPLES MONTICELLO. Your approach is killing that vision, and taking NEEDED (according to you private emailer) expertise away from that vision. Keith p.s. It doesnt matter if the code is crap, un-formatted crap. It cant possibly be worse than MC1.0 and the amount of cruft I refactored.

Feb. 12, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Workspace API

by Keith Hodges

StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > About MC1.5 here is what I received as a private email. > So I imagine that the person is a bit too negative too but you can > understand that we pay attention and need time > to ***really*** look at it. > > I hope you don't include Monticello 1.5 in Pharo. All code that we > have seen so far from Keith cases trouble. I have nothing to support > this except the people reporting problems with Monticello 1.5. > > Stef > > Well thats incredibly stupid. I have NO KNOWLEDGE of these so called problems. What are they were are they? If the anonymous detracter will tell me what those problems are we can fix them. We aim to be very responsive. Keith

Feb. 12, 2009