- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1399: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (notes to the commentary to the addendum)

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1399 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #1993 was integrated: "22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (notes to the commentary to the addendum)" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1993 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Nov. 14, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1398: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (commentary to the addendum)

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1398 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #1992 was integrated: "22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (commentary to the addendum)" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1992 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Nov. 14, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1396: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (addendum to the addendum)

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1396 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #1991 was integrated: "22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (addendum to the addendum)" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1991 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Nov. 14, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1395: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (addendum)

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1395 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #1990 was integrated: "22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (addendum)" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1990 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Nov. 14, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1394: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (definitive compilation)

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1394 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #1989 was integrated: "22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (definitive compilation)" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1989 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Nov. 14, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Debugger "Through" acting like "Into"

by Guillermo Polito

Hi Martin, On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 4:15 AM Martin McClure <martin(a)hand2mouse.com> wrote: > In the latest Pharo 7 > (Pharo-7.0.0+rc1.build.1384.sha.c34d6a69d9d01a2816df1f9fdc7388580163df29 > (32 Bit)) it seems like clicking "Through" in the debugger often (but > not always) has the effect of "Into", which seems wrong and makes > stepping through code difficult. I don't know how new this behavior is. > > Is this a known behavior? If not, I'll characterize it further. > Not that I know. >From the top of my head, step through should work like a step over, unless the execution flows into the block whose home = thisContext. What is the behaviour you expect? Just as a side note, we have a Phd student trying to understand the semantics of our debugger operations and they are not always so evident. We are trying to write tests for all these to "formalise" (:)) the semantics and have a battery to detect regressions. Guille

Nov. 14, 2018

Debugger "Through" acting like "Into"

by Martin McClure

In the latest Pharo 7 (Pharo-7.0.0+rc1.build.1384.sha.c34d6a69d9d01a2816df1f9fdc7388580163df29 (32 Bit)) it seems like clicking "Through" in the debugger often (but not always) has the effect of "Into", which seems wrong and makes stepping through code difficult. I don't know how new this behavior is. Is this a known behavior? If not, I'll characterize it further. Regards, -Martin

Nov. 14, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] How do I create a binary stream

by Stephane Ducasse

Thanks you all for the discussion. We should improve the comment of File and probably the one of FileReference. Tx Sven for the improvement of the comment of ImageReadWriter. Good comments are so important! We underestimate their impact. S On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 2:10 PM Hilaire <hilaire(a)drgeo.eu> wrote: > > I am quite happy with the new FileReference API. > > Le 11/11/2018 Ã 13:51, Sven Van Caekenberghe a Ã©crit : > > API changes are always annoying, but splitting reading and writing as well as binary and character streams is a clear improvement overall. > > > -- > Dr. Geo > http://drgeo.eu > > >

Nov. 13, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1393: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (V5)

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1393 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #1987 was integrated: "22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (V5)" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1987 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Nov. 13, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1392: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (V4)

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1392 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #1986 was integrated: "22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (V4)" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1986 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Nov. 13, 2018