- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] PharoLauncher - upgrading to 1.6 on Windows
by Christophe Demarey Feb. 12, 2019

Feb. 12, 2019

Hi Petr, Thanks for the feedback. I opened a bu entry for it: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-launcher/issues/310 I'm able to reproduce the problem. I need to investigate because it looks fine from what I see (see attached screenshots). Regards, Christophe > Le 12 fÃ©vr. 2019 Ã 08:17, Petr Fischer via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> a Ã©crit : > > > De: Petr Fischer <petr.fischer(a)me.com> > Objet: PharoLauncher - upgrading to 1.6 on Windows > Date: 12 fÃ©vrier 2019 08:17:30 UTC+1 > Ã: pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org > > > Hello. > > I thought I'd try PharoLauncher again after some time and I really have a bad luck with this product. > > I have a PharoLauncher version 1.5.1 installed. If I run new 1.6 installer, this error occurs: > > "A more recent version of PharoLauncher is already installed on this computer" > https://app.box.com/s/rbn1n12zvx5rvy4zb1s0fujhkbzwvone > > "More recent?..." Really? > > I uninstalled old version manually of course, but... PharoLauncher can't update itself? > > Platform: Windows 10 Pro [1809] > > pf > > >

1 0

[Pharo 8.0] Build #65: [IGNORE]2466-Remove-unused-variables
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Feb. 12, 2019

Feb. 12, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #65 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #2468 was integrated: "[IGNORE]2466-Remove-unused-variables" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2468 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2466 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

Re: [Pharo-dev] PharoLauncher - upgrading to 1.6 on Windows
by Franz Josef Konrad Feb. 12, 2019

Feb. 12, 2019

Am 12.02.2019 um 08:17 schrieb Petr Fischer via Pharo-dev: > > PharoLauncher - upgrading to 1.6 on Windows.eml > > Betreff: > PharoLauncher - upgrading to 1.6 on Windows > Von: > Petr Fischer <petr.fischer(a)me.com> > Datum: > 12.02.2019, 08:17 > > An: > pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org > > > Hello. > > I thought I'd try PharoLauncher again after some time and I really have a bad luck with this product. > > I have a PharoLauncher version 1.5.1 installed. If I run new 1.6 installer, this error occurs: > > "A more recent version of PharoLauncher is already installed on this computer" > https://app.box.com/s/rbn1n12zvx5rvy4zb1s0fujhkbzwvone > > "More recent?..." Really? > > I uninstalled old version manually of course, but... PharoLauncher can't update itself? > > Platform: Windows 10 Pro [1809] > > pf > I had the same problem and deleted the Pharo entries in the registry manually with regedit. After that I was able to use the installer. I suspect that the PharoLauncher does not yet contain the correct version information in the registry or that it is not evaluated correctly. Franz Josef

1 0

PharoLauncher - upgrading to 1.6 on Windows
by Petr Fischer Feb. 12, 2019

Feb. 12, 2019

Hello. I thought I'd try PharoLauncher again after some time and I really have a bad luck with this product. I have a PharoLauncher version 1.5.1 installed. If I run new 1.6 installer, this error occurs: "A more recent version of PharoLauncher is already installed on this computer" https://app.box.com/s/rbn1n12zvx5rvy4zb1s0fujhkbzwvone "More recent?..." Really? I uninstalled old version manually of course, but... PharoLauncher can't update itself? Platform: Windows 10 Pro [1809] pf

1 0

[Pharo 8.0] Build #64: 2489-DatePrintFormatTester-should-be-removed
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #64 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #2490 was integrated: "2489-DatePrintFormatTester-should-be-removed" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2490 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2489 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Pharo 8.0] Build #63: 2476-Cleaning-initialize-categorisation
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #63 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #2477 was integrated: "2476-Cleaning-initialize-categorisation" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2477 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2476 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

Esteban's ChangeLog week of 4 February 2019
by estebanlm＠gmail.com Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

Hello! This is my weekly ChangeLog, from 4 February 2019 to 10 February 2019. You can see it in a better format by going here: http://log.smallworks.eu/web/search?from=4/2/2019&to=10/2/2019 ChangeLog ========= 9 February 2019: ---------------- * === On layouts As you know, I've been working on layouts for Spec 2. The basic layouts I want to have available next week(s) are four: * +SpecBoxLayout+ : A simple way to place components horizontally or vertically * +SpecPanedLayout+ : Same as box layout, but with a resizable splitter (and it will allow just two... if you want more you will need to compose). * +SpecGridLayout+ : To place components in a grid (x,y coordinates and spans) * +SpecXYLayout+ : This could be renamed as +SpecAbsoluteLayout+ and it's name says all, it will allow absolute location of components (obviously, in relation with its parent). For a second phase there will be a couple more +SpecFlowLayout+ and a kasowari layout (without name yet :P). The ones on first phase are the most important ones. In particular, we have detected that with first three (Box, Paned, Grid) we can reproduce everything we have currently in Pharo. The second phase will add possibilities for the future. Anyway, I have "kind-of-working" the first three, but I have problems when applying layouts here and there, because morphic time to time wants to behave differently than asked. One of the problems is that for this layouts, to make them behave correctly (and without a lot of work from users), I will need to add the concept of "minimum, preferred and maximum" extent. Reason why I'm playing with a small implementation of styling... which most probably will go away once I find the best way to handle this constraints. So, this week I have nothing finished, just a pointer to my current work: [https://github.com/estebanlm/Spec/tree/dev-2.0](https://github.com/estebanl… 7 February 2019: ---------------- * Small fix-a-day: [https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2452](https://github.com/pharo-… cheers! Esteban

6 7

[Pharo 8.0] Build #62: 2486-Class-builder-should-call-initializeSlot-on-instance-migration
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #62 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #2487 was integrated: "2486-Class-builder-should-call-initializeSlot-on-instance-migration" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2487 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2486 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

atRandom & integer agnosticism
by David Richards Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

Hello community. Kindly consider: | n i r | n := ( 2 ** 256 ) - 1 . "the largest 256-bit value" i := ( 0 to: n ) . "the interval 0 to 2**256-1" "Produce three sets of computed test results." 3 timesRepeat: [ Transcript show: ( r := i atRandom ) ; cr . Transcript show: ( r asByteArray hex ) ; cr . ] According to comments in Pharo library code, atRandom fails for integer magnitudes greater than 2**30 . A reason for this limitation is not given, and it's not clear to a novice such as myself why the computed result of atRandom is permitted to sometimes be in conflict with the semantics of atRandom . Can anyone provide a basic explanation of the rationale for a 'broken' atRandom ? Alternatively, is this a known bug? Thanks. dr

3 4

[Pharo 8.0] Build #61: 2480-Remove-GTSpotterDoubleLinkedList
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #61 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2481 was integrated: "2480-Remove-GTSpotterDoubleLinkedList" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2481 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2480 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0