- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Esteban Lorenzano

ours is already part of the pharo core. we should save the corresponding packages in Pharo/Spec project. Esteban On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:56, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. > Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. > > Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. > > Phil > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. > To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed. > So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. > > Cheers, > > Luc > > > 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: > >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, > >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse > >>> interest from doubtful people. > >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk > >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on > >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. > >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... > >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha > >>> ...) > >>> :( > >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) > >>> > >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't > >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? > >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing > >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it > >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency > >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? > >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will > >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > >> > >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > >> Smalltalk) > >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential > >> problem for Pharo. > >> > > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution > > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > > > > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > > > > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). > > > > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have > > a licence when we started to use it). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > > Regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > > >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

There is another option: work together again. On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:56, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. > Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. > > Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. > > Phil > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. > To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed. > So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. > > Cheers, > > Luc > > > 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: > >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, > >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse > >>> interest from doubtful people. > >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk > >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on > >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. > >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... > >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha > >>> ...) > >>> :( > >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) > >>> > >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't > >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? > >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing > >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it > >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency > >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? > >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will > >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > >> > >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > >> Smalltalk) > >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential > >> problem for Pharo. > >> > > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution > > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > > > > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > > > > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). > > > > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have > > a licence when we started to use it). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > > Regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > > >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by phil＠highoctane.be

Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. Phil On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I > think that this is not a problem. > To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of > Spec since the licence changed. > So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. > > Cheers, > > Luc > > > 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> >> wrote: >> > >> > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, >> Glamour, >> >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could >> arouse >> >>> interest from doubtful people. >> >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the >> smalltalk >> >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >> >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >> >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... >> >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? >> hahaha >> >>> ...) >> >>> :( >> >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >> >>> >> >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >> >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >> >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the >> mailing >> >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >> >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >> >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on >> Bloc ? >> >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL >> ? Will >> >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? >> >> >> >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT >> >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use >> >> Smalltalk) >> >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential >> >> problem for Pharo. >> >> >> > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo >> main distribution >> > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >> > >> > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >> > >> > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of >> the main distribution). >> > >> > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL >> (it did not have >> > a licence when we started to use it). >> >> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double >> licencing of spec. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Serge Stinckwich >> UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) >> Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk >> http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ >> >> >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Failing make a slice

by Marcus Denker

On 26 Aug 2014, at 09:09, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 00:18, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> A slice is nothing more than an empty mcz package with as requirements some other packages, namely the ones that you changed and want to include. I guess that if you take a fresh image and merge in your packages, you can create a new slice over them (provided they are dirty, sometimes this is a bit hard, you could make a trivial change). Make sure to save the slice with a higher version number. >> > > The problem that the bug seems deeperâ¦ I have the impression that âSave Sliceâ does not search all the repos and if the number already exists, increase (like normal slice saving). > Then, when saving, it *saves* the wrong version as it asks the cache âgive me name Xâ, and âname Xâ is already there, and it uses that for upload (or even skips the upload as the > file is already there?). > Even re-saving the slice does not help, as unchanged members are not re-saved with a new name. > > But even if this would work, everything fails as soon as you end up with two MCZ files with the same name (e.g. working in two images offline, or working on a package, save, but then only merge > it *after* you did another change in the main branch that led to the same name). > > Maybe we should really add the hash in the filenameâ¦ I added an issue: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13921/Problem-committing-Slices-duplicate…

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Release TaskIT Version 1

by Serge Stinckwich

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:21 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > Thank you guys > Guille finishing a first draft of the pillar chapter would be great. Like > that you add it to your publication list :) Maybe, chapters should have explicit authors. This is not the case for all chapters. Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Serge Stinckwich

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:18, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>> GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution >>> is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >>> >>> We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >>> >>> New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). >>> >>> e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have >>> a licence when we started to use it). >> >> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double >> licencing of spec. >> > > I do not think that you can change a license without getting the OK of all authors, I guess > it is a mistake in the config of the project. This is not a mistake, look here: https://github.com/spec-framework/spec/commit/07ea83ca50523b4a912e363ff2f39… -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Marcus Denker

On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:18, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution >> is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >> >> We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >> >> New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). >> >> e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have >> a licence when we started to use it). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > I do not think that you can change a license without getting the OK of all authors, I guess it is a mistake in the config of the project. Marcus

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Luc Fabresse

Hi all, Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed. So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. Cheers, Luc 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> > wrote: > > > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> > wrote: > >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, > Glamour, > >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could > arouse > >>> interest from doubtful people. > >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the > smalltalk > >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on > >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. > >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... > >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? > hahaha > >>> ...) > >>> :( > >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) > >>> > >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't > >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? > >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the > mailing > >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it > >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency > >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc > ? > >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? > Will > >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > >> > >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > >> Smalltalk) > >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential > >> problem for Pharo. > >> > > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo > main distribution > > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > > > > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > > > > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of > the main distribution). > > > > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL > (it did not have > > a licence when we started to use it). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > > Regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Torsten Bergmann

> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. Is that new? Why is it double licensed? Thanks T.

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Serge Stinckwich

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse >>> interest from doubtful people. >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >>> ...) >>> :( >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >>> >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? >> >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use >> Smalltalk) >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential >> problem for Pharo. >> > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). > > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have > a licence when we started to use it). I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double licencing of spec. Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

Aug. 26, 2014