- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Sean P. DeNigris

Nicolas Cellier wrote > If killer feature is not the social part, then we don't really need > github. > Git, MC, or any other distributed VCS already handle the trivial ability > to > fork. Okay, fine ha ha, the social part is *the* killer advantage. Perhaps I should've inserted "committing" before "workflow". As to the triviality, IMHO it doesn't get much simpler than clicking "Fork" and then "Create PR", and I don't know of anything nearly that simple in the mcz world. Maybe per-project inboxes might have helped a bit, but always more to do than resources. Nicolas Cellier wrote > IMO, time spent to convince that a change must be merged back is not lost > time. Sure, but the key now is that you can do all that convincing *after* you continue with your own work, instead of being stalled. ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html

Nov. 3, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Nicolas Cellier

So the killer feature is not the possibility to report issues, propose and link corrections, enhancements and new features to be merged back, have them automatically tested on continuous integration bots, comment code online and have discussions about implementation correctness or style... If killer feature is not the social part, then we don't really need github. Git, MC, or any other distributed VCS already handle the trivial ability to fork. Forking is very important for handling concurrent timelines. But a good fork is a fork that is merged back, because it preserves retro contributions. If divergence of interest is too high, then yes, the ability to definitely fork is important, but it should be last resort decision. IMO, time spent to convince that a change must be merged back is not lost time. Unless the change is not that good. A fork is a super easy and convenient way to handle the case in short term. But long term divergences soon become unsustainable drag. So please, be social and cooperative and favor win-win strategies :) Le 3 nov. 2018 03:25, "Sean P. DeNigris" <sean(a)clipperadams.com> a Ã©crit : NorbertHartl wrote > In order to make myself independent I fork the projects I consider > unstable and use the fork in our product. This way I have control when > there is something updated. This could also be a good way for pharo. I was thinking the same. This is also what I do. My goal is *never* to depend on external projects, only my forks. With GH this is trivial. With mcz repos it was much harder IMHO. And it seems to address Steph's valid concern because you just commit to your fork and keep moving ahead - no waiting, just create a PR and it's up to the maintainer to accept or not. BTW This concept of forking and insulating oneself from unstable external projects IMHO is *the* killer feature of GH for Smalltalk/Pharo workflows. How many hours I wasted trying to contact "maintainers" of abandonware mcz repos to integrate a fix! ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html

Nov. 3, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Sean P. DeNigris

NorbertHartl wrote > In order to make myself independent I fork the projects I consider > unstable and use the fork in our product. This way I have control when > there is something updated. This could also be a good way for pharo. I was thinking the same. This is also what I do. My goal is *never* to depend on external projects, only my forks. With GH this is trivial. With mcz repos it was much harder IMHO. And it seems to address Steph's valid concern because you just commit to your fork and keep moving ahead - no waiting, just create a PR and it's up to the maintainer to accept or not. BTW This concept of forking and insulating oneself from unstable external projects IMHO is *the* killer feature of GH for Smalltalk/Pharo workflows. How many hours I wasted trying to contact "maintainers" of abandonware mcz repos to integrate a fix! ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html

Nov. 3, 2018

[squeakland] strategies and tools for a comeback of Smalltalk using Scratch as entrance

by Bernhard HÃ¶fner

Hello Stephane and Jecel, thank your for your welcome. Before I start to explain my thought and ideas I want want to write short about my background. I work with ST80 since 1990. After a computer kid career since mid 1970th with Basic, Machine language, Assembler, FORTH and Pascal I ended up with Smalltalk 80 and I am always again fascinated about what happens with me and the subject that I am going to implement. ST80 structures the work and in an almost philosophical way it makes me learning more about the subject and its internal structure. I want to let you know that I am not a Smalltalk specialist. I had some bigger private projects but never worked with it on a professional base or in a team. Since about 10 years I had only flying visits to VisualWorks due to other priorities and have a view to Smalltalk more on "secondary literatureâ and so my view is more a view from outside. But ST80 never let me go. My main occupation did not end in an IT-job but in a âdown-homeâ business. As an electrical engineer I am working as technical consultant in the renewable energy sector. Thats why I know very good the âreal worldâ. On the other hand I am very interested in childhood and the process of learning (most of my relatives are kindergarden teacher). My experiences in both sectors satisfied me that people love continuity in the tools they are using. Continuity is meant in its mathematical meaning and describes that people doesn't like tools where they have ruptures in their learning curve. This applies especially to software tools. I think that this is the reason, why for example there are EXCELians who like to make everything in MS-EXCEL including writing letters and reports and WORDists, who do the same but everything in MS-WORD. I am convinced that people like continuous learning curves: small steps in learning result in small steps increasing efficiency or quality of result. There is another approach: Despite of my finding that ST80 is the most excellent language I witnessed a vanish of the language in the public perception since the 1990th. Yoshiki Ohshima spoke about the âsecrete weaponâ phenomenon of Smalltalk (compare similar effect on Lisp, described in this article: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html <http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html> ), but I think this phenomenon leads in a generation of students growing up with not optimal tools because no one shows them ST80 in an enthusiastic way. I like to have whistle-blowers to tell them the secret. The digital world should be based on and maintained with the best tools. I know enough creepy software from my main occupation... For a comeback of ST80 I think it is essential to win the youth and hold the students. Otherwise the same happens as in many church parish or in clubs: once they loose one generation, the parish or club life dies. I write such elaborate because I want to let you understand why I like to see Scratch as the start phase of an software development environment / framework with Smalltalk 80 at its final phase. Friends of mine left Scratch because they missed such a "high endâ and they moved to very other programming languages. Maybe such a complete environment could lead in a tool Alan Kay dreamed about with its Dynabook idea. Scratch would be still an excellent starting point of such an environment. It is widespread in the young programmer scene, not only with LEGO, but also with KOSMOS, the leading producer of experimentation boxes in Germany. The German popular children TV-program âDie Sendung mit der Mausâ started recently a programming course with Scratch 3: https://programmieren.wdrmaus.de <https://programmieren.wdrmaus.de/>. Microsofts follows also the idea of a continuous language with his excellent looking tool MakeCode, that have links to popular games like MINECRAFT (see: "Chickens! - MakeCode for Minecraft Code Builderâ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDaOISL9_UE <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDaOISL9_UE>), adaptors to micro controller boards (see: "https://makecode.microbit.org <https://makecode.microbit.org/>â - access is very low-thereshold: with one click you can start. - no registration or other stuff is needed) and a link from block view to a higher level programming language view ( https://makezine.com/2017/09/20/learn-basics-javascript-makecode/ <https://makezine.com/2017/09/20/learn-basics-javascript-makecode/> - very nice with flying help for blocks including JavaScript code ). Unfortunately it ends up in JavaScript and not in ST80. I think it would be better to come from block programming languages direct to ST80 - I know several people coming from imperative languages and were not able to adapt to the object oriented approach. The world is object oriented like robots, sensors, actors! Maybe the pure object orientation of ST80 would be the weapon to beat MakeCode. John Maloney and Yoshiki Ohshima gave me very worthy hints to Scratch based branches that realize most of my wishes: Microcontroller access: http://microblocks.fun <http://microblocks.fun/> Sqeak based Ipad-implementation with access to Ipad-Sensors etc: https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Pyonkee <https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Pyonkee> Scratch with connection to ST80: http://www.phratch.com <http://www.phratch.com/> Scratch branch âGPâ, with the idea that it is better teaching experts a useful programming language to have them writing themselves applications they need for their work instead of having software developers learning the experts subjects to write software for the experts: http://gpblocks.org <http://gpblocks.org/> All that is fascinating and promising but I am afraid about the barrier of this "marketplace of possibilitiesâ for children to find the optimal track. My wish would be a cooperation of the creators of these excellent tools to bring the properties together, leading in one transparent programming tool. Maybe with modules which can be loaded and unloaded but with a clear and redundancy free structure and user interface. There is much more to say, but the email is long enough now. What do you think about this idea. Best Regards, Bernhard > Am 26.10.2018 um 22:27 schrieb Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com <mailto:stepharo.self@gmail.com>>: > > Hi Bernhard > > we are interested in that topics. This is why I wrote the botsinc book > in the past and more recently learning OOP with TDD in Pharo book. > Now I do not have much resources for the topic. > Stef > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:16 PM Bernhard HÃ¶fner <bernhard.hoefner(a)gmx.de <mailto:bernhard.hoefner@gmx.de>> wrote: >> >>> Hello Group. I like to discuss about the subject and have also some ideas. But I want to ask first for the proper list within the forum. I heard that there is a discussion ongoing and want to participate. >>> >>> I will send this question to Squeak and Pharo usegroup and to the Phratch-developer. I assume that there is a common discussion about the subject. Hopefully there is no need to open on each platform an individual thread. >>> >>> Regards, Bernhard >> >

Nov. 2, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 02.11.2018 um 12:23 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > > > >> On 2 Nov 2018, at 12:01, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >>> Am 02.11.2018 um 11:15 schrieb Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com>: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Pay attention the following email is not nice and politically correct >>> but it is important for the speed of improvements in Pharo. >>> >> thanks for the disclaimer. It is important. I copy that because mine might be not political correct, too. >> >>> I think that we are doing our best when dealing with subproject code. >>> Now if we are forced to publish each little changes >>> on each subproject and wait that something gets integrated into each >>> subproject, then I would prefer to stop Pharo and do something else. >>> We cannot ask someone to stop in the middle of a massive super boring >>> and feel like shit cleaning in addition to stop and >>> please publish a PR and wait that it gets integrated and wait that >>> Pharo integrates the new version. >>> Let us be a bit serious and pro here. >>> >> I know this. And Iâm taking it serious because I want to talk about it. If you decide that you rather be offended then talk please do. I find it annoying that a lot of topics are washed away because someone is offended. That is just another way of killing communication although it is a state-of-the-art these days. >> >>> Or we should drop subprojects. Because changing Pharo is getting a >>> painful. Imagine just a change cross cutting several subprojects. >>> For example, I did not fix the use of deprecated classes in Iceberg >>> because I got distracted by the where is the project hosted and I was >>> not connected on a good web connection. I changed calypso and >>> published to calypso but if the feedback loop is too long it means >>> that >>> we will prefer to work on our own projects (because we have also our >>> own projects and there velocity is high and attractive). >>> >>> I think that with github support this is simple to get the changes. >>> Finally I heard that large companies developing large projects using >>> github are managing one single repo: no subprojects, with their own PR >>> and sync. And us little guys with our super clever brains we will >>> succeed adding more constraints on the table. >>> How bold are we. I'm impressed by such level of arrogance. This is why >>> I do not like that Pharo gets managed in various repo >>> because it kills us. >>> >> Actually I was inquiring what everyone is doing to circumvent those problems (!!!). I have the same situation in my company. Iâm the one that is reluctant to go to monorepo because I donât like my code jailed in a project. But the effort we have to take in order to organize a stable and development version with a lot of external projects is killing us. So can we please talk about it? Pleeeeeaaassseee??? > > It is what it is today: there a some (a few) 'external' projects that are part of the pharo image. For those, (most) allow changes in the pharo image, while the maintainer of the external project merges them back upstream. That is indeed the fastest cycle for pharo itself, but more work for the maintainers. > It seems Iâm not very clear when writing mails. I understand why this happens and I understand it needs to be that way because of less annoyance and improved speed. I donât understand how it is done explicitly. As we have a process that builds the image where are those changes applied? Is there a copy of the original package that gets tweaked? > I believe the promise of Iceberg is that it would (maybe already is) just as easy to do pull requests against against any repo. The future solution then could be that each external project from the main image to their own repos. > Yes, Iâm getting used to git although I donât like it. One reason I took several days time to help migrate projects from smalltalkhub to github is exactly this. In order to make myself independent I fork the projects I consider unstable and use the fork in our product. This way I have control when there is something updated. This could also be a good way for pharo. If there is a github project where every external project is forked to and used in pharo. This way you can control upstream and you can add tweaks that are needed for a release. Iâm intrigued which approaches people do for what reasons. > I want to add another aspect to this discussion: respect for the original authors and current maintainers. It is a *HUGE* amount of work to write, document, publish, support and maintain any piece of software over several years, across pharo versions. > Agreed. Norbert >> Norbert >> >>> Stef >>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:12 AM Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Am 02.11.2018 um 00:13 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 19:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Norbert, >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was planning on getting all changes to Zn/Zdc from pharo 7 back upstream (and to GitHub), but I did not yet get around to it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The current diff between Zn #bleedingEdge and Pharo 7 seems relatively minor, I will try to merge later tonight, at least the part in Zinc-Character-Encoding-Core that is causing you trouble. >>>>> >>>>> Norbert, >>>>> >>>>> I did a bunch of commits (both in the classic Zn MC repos as well as in GitHub) that should help you, it works for me in any case. Zn #bleedingEdge / HEAD is now in sync with Pharo 7 - it actually contains more. >>>>> >>>>> Could you please test ? >>>>> >>>> The first test I did was successful. There were popups for loading different zinc Versions but that is expected. I will test more today. Thanks for now. Can you please add tags in github for the version in smalltalkhub? Otherwise it is hard to switch. >>>> >>>> Norbert

Nov. 2, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 2 Nov 2018, at 12:01, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > Hi > >> Am 02.11.2018 um 11:15 schrieb Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com>: >> >> Hi >> >> Pay attention the following email is not nice and politically correct >> but it is important for the speed of improvements in Pharo. >> > thanks for the disclaimer. It is important. I copy that because mine might be not political correct, too. > >> I think that we are doing our best when dealing with subproject code. >> Now if we are forced to publish each little changes >> on each subproject and wait that something gets integrated into each >> subproject, then I would prefer to stop Pharo and do something else. >> We cannot ask someone to stop in the middle of a massive super boring >> and feel like shit cleaning in addition to stop and >> please publish a PR and wait that it gets integrated and wait that >> Pharo integrates the new version. >> Let us be a bit serious and pro here. >> > I know this. And Iâm taking it serious because I want to talk about it. If you decide that you rather be offended then talk please do. I find it annoying that a lot of topics are washed away because someone is offended. That is just another way of killing communication although it is a state-of-the-art these days. > >> Or we should drop subprojects. Because changing Pharo is getting a >> painful. Imagine just a change cross cutting several subprojects. >> For example, I did not fix the use of deprecated classes in Iceberg >> because I got distracted by the where is the project hosted and I was >> not connected on a good web connection. I changed calypso and >> published to calypso but if the feedback loop is too long it means >> that >> we will prefer to work on our own projects (because we have also our >> own projects and there velocity is high and attractive). >> >> I think that with github support this is simple to get the changes. >> Finally I heard that large companies developing large projects using >> github are managing one single repo: no subprojects, with their own PR >> and sync. And us little guys with our super clever brains we will >> succeed adding more constraints on the table. >> How bold are we. I'm impressed by such level of arrogance. This is why >> I do not like that Pharo gets managed in various repo >> because it kills us. >> > Actually I was inquiring what everyone is doing to circumvent those problems (!!!). I have the same situation in my company. Iâm the one that is reluctant to go to monorepo because I donât like my code jailed in a project. But the effort we have to take in order to organize a stable and development version with a lot of external projects is killing us. So can we please talk about it? Pleeeeeaaassseee??? It is what it is today: there a some (a few) 'external' projects that are part of the pharo image. For those, (most) allow changes in the pharo image, while the maintainer of the external project merges them back upstream. That is indeed the fastest cycle for pharo itself, but more work for the maintainers. I believe the promise of Iceberg is that it would (maybe already is) just as easy to do pull requests against against any repo. The future solution then could be that each external project from the main image to their own repos. I want to add another aspect to this discussion: respect for the original authors and current maintainers. It is a *HUGE* amount of work to write, document, publish, support and maintain any piece of software over several years, across pharo versions. > Norbert > >> Stef >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:12 AM Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Am 02.11.2018 um 00:13 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 19:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Norbert, >>>>> >>>>>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I was planning on getting all changes to Zn/Zdc from pharo 7 back upstream (and to GitHub), but I did not yet get around to it. >>>>> >>>>> The current diff between Zn #bleedingEdge and Pharo 7 seems relatively minor, I will try to merge later tonight, at least the part in Zinc-Character-Encoding-Core that is causing you trouble. >>>> >>>> Norbert, >>>> >>>> I did a bunch of commits (both in the classic Zn MC repos as well as in GitHub) that should help you, it works for me in any case. Zn #bleedingEdge / HEAD is now in sync with Pharo 7 - it actually contains more. >>>> >>>> Could you please test ? >>>> >>> The first test I did was successful. There were popups for loading different zinc Versions but that is expected. I will test more today. Thanks for now. Can you please add tags in github for the version in smalltalkhub? Otherwise it is hard to switch. >>> >>> Norbert

Nov. 2, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Norbert Hartl

Hi > Am 02.11.2018 um 11:15 schrieb Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com>: > > Hi > > Pay attention the following email is not nice and politically correct > but it is important for the speed of improvements in Pharo. > thanks for the disclaimer. It is important. I copy that because mine might be not political correct, too. > I think that we are doing our best when dealing with subproject code. > Now if we are forced to publish each little changes > on each subproject and wait that something gets integrated into each > subproject, then I would prefer to stop Pharo and do something else. > We cannot ask someone to stop in the middle of a massive super boring > and feel like shit cleaning in addition to stop and > please publish a PR and wait that it gets integrated and wait that > Pharo integrates the new version. > Let us be a bit serious and pro here. > I know this. And Iâm taking it serious because I want to talk about it. If you decide that you rather be offended then talk please do. I find it annoying that a lot of topics are washed away because someone is offended. That is just another way of killing communication although it is a state-of-the-art these days. > Or we should drop subprojects. Because changing Pharo is getting a > painful. Imagine just a change cross cutting several subprojects. > For example, I did not fix the use of deprecated classes in Iceberg > because I got distracted by the where is the project hosted and I was > not connected on a good web connection. I changed calypso and > published to calypso but if the feedback loop is too long it means > that > we will prefer to work on our own projects (because we have also our > own projects and there velocity is high and attractive). > > I think that with github support this is simple to get the changes. > Finally I heard that large companies developing large projects using > github are managing one single repo: no subprojects, with their own PR > and sync. And us little guys with our super clever brains we will > succeed adding more constraints on the table. > How bold are we. I'm impressed by such level of arrogance. This is why > I do not like that Pharo gets managed in various repo > because it kills us. > Actually I was inquiring what everyone is doing to circumvent those problems (!!!). I have the same situation in my company. Iâm the one that is reluctant to go to monorepo because I donât like my code jailed in a project. But the effort we have to take in order to organize a stable and development version with a lot of external projects is killing us. So can we please talk about it? Pleeeeeaaassseee??? Norbert > Stef > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:12 AM Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Am 02.11.2018 um 00:13 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 19:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> >>>> Norbert, >>>> >>>>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I was planning on getting all changes to Zn/Zdc from pharo 7 back upstream (and to GitHub), but I did not yet get around to it. >>>> >>>> The current diff between Zn #bleedingEdge and Pharo 7 seems relatively minor, I will try to merge later tonight, at least the part in Zinc-Character-Encoding-Core that is causing you trouble. >>> >>> Norbert, >>> >>> I did a bunch of commits (both in the classic Zn MC repos as well as in GitHub) that should help you, it works for me in any case. Zn #bleedingEdge / HEAD is now in sync with Pharo 7 - it actually contains more. >>> >>> Could you please test ? >>> >> The first test I did was successful. There were popups for loading different zinc Versions but that is expected. I will test more today. Thanks for now. Can you please add tags in github for the version in smalltalkhub? Otherwise it is hard to switch. >> >> Norbert >> >> >> >> >> >

Nov. 2, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Stephane Ducasse

Hi Pay attention the following email is not nice and politically correct but it is important for the speed of improvements in Pharo. I think that we are doing our best when dealing with subproject code. Now if we are forced to publish each little changes on each subproject and wait that something gets integrated into each subproject, then I would prefer to stop Pharo and do something else. We cannot ask someone to stop in the middle of a massive super boring and feel like shit cleaning in addition to stop and please publish a PR and wait that it gets integrated and wait that Pharo integrates the new version. Let us be a bit serious and pro here. Or we should drop subprojects. Because changing Pharo is getting a painful. Imagine just a change cross cutting several subprojects. For example, I did not fix the use of deprecated classes in Iceberg because I got distracted by the where is the project hosted and I was not connected on a good web connection. I changed calypso and published to calypso but if the feedback loop is too long it means that we will prefer to work on our own projects (because we have also our own projects and there velocity is high and attractive). I think that with github support this is simple to get the changes. Finally I heard that large companies developing large projects using github are managing one single repo: no subprojects, with their own PR and sync. And us little guys with our super clever brains we will succeed adding more constraints on the table. How bold are we. I'm impressed by such level of arrogance. This is why I do not like that Pharo gets managed in various repo because it kills us. Stef On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:12 AM Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > > > > Am 02.11.2018 um 00:13 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > > > > > > > >> On 1 Nov 2018, at 19:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> > >> Norbert, > >> > >>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >>> > >>> I was planning on getting all changes to Zn/Zdc from pharo 7 back upstream (and to GitHub), but I did not yet get around to it. > >> > >> The current diff between Zn #bleedingEdge and Pharo 7 seems relatively minor, I will try to merge later tonight, at least the part in Zinc-Character-Encoding-Core that is causing you trouble. > > > > Norbert, > > > > I did a bunch of commits (both in the classic Zn MC repos as well as in GitHub) that should help you, it works for me in any case. Zn #bleedingEdge / HEAD is now in sync with Pharo 7 - it actually contains more. > > > > Could you please test ? > > > The first test I did was successful. There were popups for loading different zinc Versions but that is expected. I will test more today. Thanks for now. Can you please add tags in github for the version in smalltalkhub? Otherwise it is hard to switch. > > Norbert > > > > >

Nov. 2, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 02.11.2018 um 00:13 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > > > >> On 1 Nov 2018, at 19:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> Norbert, >> >>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>> I was planning on getting all changes to Zn/Zdc from pharo 7 back upstream (and to GitHub), but I did not yet get around to it. >> >> The current diff between Zn #bleedingEdge and Pharo 7 seems relatively minor, I will try to merge later tonight, at least the part in Zinc-Character-Encoding-Core that is causing you trouble. > > Norbert, > > I did a bunch of commits (both in the classic Zn MC repos as well as in GitHub) that should help you, it works for me in any case. Zn #bleedingEdge / HEAD is now in sync with Pharo 7 - it actually contains more. > > Could you please test ? > The first test I did was successful. There were popups for loading different zinc Versions but that is expected. I will test more today. Thanks for now. Can you please add tags in github for the version in smalltalkhub? Otherwise it is hard to switch. Norbert

Nov. 2, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] Cannot use Zinc in Pharo7 anymore

by Norbert Hartl

Hi, > Am 02.11.2018 um 00:13 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > > > >> On 1 Nov 2018, at 19:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> Norbert, >> >>> On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>> I was planning on getting all changes to Zn/Zdc from pharo 7 back upstream (and to GitHub), but I did not yet get around to it. >> >> The current diff between Zn #bleedingEdge and Pharo 7 seems relatively minor, I will try to merge later tonight, at least the part in Zinc-Character-Encoding-Core that is causing you trouble. > > Norbert, > > I did a bunch of commits (both in the classic Zn MC repos as well as in GitHub) that should help you, it works for me in any case. Zn #bleedingEdge / HEAD is now in sync with Pharo 7 - it actually contains more. > > Could you please test ? > I think I have to. Usually it is not possible to load something from bleedingEdge and Zinc is used all over the place. But as it is you I change it ;) Norbert

Nov. 2, 2018