- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] eating some obsolete dog food

by Benjamin

I think that we should really distinguish the messages that can be ignored (and then use "growl") from the messages that require to be read (like this one) and in this case, it should be in a DialogWindow Ben On Dec 8, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > Hi, > > AFAIK, actually there is an information about VMs being too old (Camillo added it when we changed the FilePlugin). It is shown in "growl" so perhaps it is easy to not see it, but is there (or should be there) :) > > Also, newcomers will most probably download the one-click image, which will come with a fashion, branded new VM :) > > Esteban > > On Dec 8, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >> >> On 07 Dec 2012, at 23:59, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> So before ranting loud, I digged a bit further: could it be this >>> warning I had at startup about obsolete VM, yes that was it! >>> So if you are episodic user like me : >>> >>> ******** DON'T FORGET TO DOWNLOAD A PHARO SPECIFIC VM ************* >>> >>> I already spent way more time on this than I wished, hope my mistake >>> helps someone else. >>> ( over-estimating pharo planned obsolescence period is indeed a >>> mistake ;) why would the VM be handled differently ? ) >>> >>> Last thing, maybe you should insist on the download page that 2.0 >>> REQUIRES a pharo specific VM. >>> Not sure I would have read it, but then it would be entirely my fault. >> >> Nicolas makes a very valid point; the first, out-of-the-box experience is massively important. >> Pharo 2.0 does indeed require a newer VM in my experience (related to FileSystem at least). >> The image _HAS_ to warn about this. >> It is just that the compatibilty test should not be more strict than absolutely necessary. >> >> -- >> Sven Van Caekenberghe >> http://stfx.eu >> Smalltalk is the Red Pill >> >> >> >> > >

Dec. 8, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Please use 20431 I rollback 20432 and 20433

by Marcus Denker

On Dec 8, 2012, at 9:29 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2012, at 9:25 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > >> Hi guys >> >> Sorry for my mistake. I rollbacked 20432 and 20433 since the changes are too intrusive. > > https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-2.0/75/ > I have manually updated http://pharo.gforge.inria.fr/ci/image/20/ latest.zip is 20431, I deleted 20432 and 20433 (one thing that is strange is that I did a 20432 update, tooâ¦ so somehow this was strange). Marcus

Dec. 8, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] eating some obsolete dog food

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, AFAIK, actually there is an information about VMs being too old (Camillo added it when we changed the FilePlugin). It is shown in "growl" so perhaps it is easy to not see it, but is there (or should be there) :) Also, newcomers will most probably download the one-click image, which will come with a fashion, branded new VM :) Esteban On Dec 8, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 07 Dec 2012, at 23:59, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> So before ranting loud, I digged a bit further: could it be this >> warning I had at startup about obsolete VM, yes that was it! >> So if you are episodic user like me : >> >> ******** DON'T FORGET TO DOWNLOAD A PHARO SPECIFIC VM ************* >> >> I already spent way more time on this than I wished, hope my mistake >> helps someone else. >> ( over-estimating pharo planned obsolescence period is indeed a >> mistake ;) why would the VM be handled differently ? ) >> >> Last thing, maybe you should insist on the download page that 2.0 >> REQUIRES a pharo specific VM. >> Not sure I would have read it, but then it would be entirely my fault. > > Nicolas makes a very valid point; the first, out-of-the-box experience is massively important. > Pharo 2.0 does indeed require a newer VM in my experience (related to FileSystem at least). > The image _HAS_ to warn about this. > It is just that the compatibilty test should not be more strict than absolutely necessary. > > -- > Sven Van Caekenberghe > http://stfx.eu > Smalltalk is the Red Pill > > > >

Dec. 8, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] eating some obsolete dog food

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 07 Dec 2012, at 23:59, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > So before ranting loud, I digged a bit further: could it be this > warning I had at startup about obsolete VM, yes that was it! > So if you are episodic user like me : > > ******** DON'T FORGET TO DOWNLOAD A PHARO SPECIFIC VM ************* > > I already spent way more time on this than I wished, hope my mistake > helps someone else. > ( over-estimating pharo planned obsolescence period is indeed a > mistake ;) why would the VM be handled differently ? ) > > Last thing, maybe you should insist on the download page that 2.0 > REQUIRES a pharo specific VM. > Not sure I would have read it, but then it would be entirely my fault. Nicolas makes a very valid point; the first, out-of-the-box experience is massively important. Pharo 2.0 does indeed require a newer VM in my experience (related to FileSystem at least). The image _HAS_ to warn about this. It is just that the compatibilty test should not be more strict than absolutely necessary. -- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill

Dec. 8, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] eating some obsolete dog food

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> >> Yes, we should mention that, especially since 2.0 now entered beta stage. >> >> But apart from this, i am really surprised that you was unable to upload MC >> package with 'obsolete' VM.. > > No problem to load/merge MC,. > The problem I encountered was most probably related to keyboard events > and their interpretation. > It disappeared using correct VM. May be this is related to the semaphore input on the windows vm but this is quite old. Stef

Dec. 8, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] eating some obsolete dog food

by Nicolas Cellier

2012/12/8 Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com>: > :) > > On 7 December 2012 23:59, Nicolas Cellier > <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> This is a long time since I did not contribute to Pharo, so I tried >> with something easy... >> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7108 >> >> I downloaded latest successful build, >> Pharo2.0a >> Latest update: #20433 >> >> Then I updated the 5 methods from a MC merge, and... >> Err... I cannot type my initials ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H full name >> The dialog insists on selecting any letter I type and next letter will >> override the previous one. >> I finally published anonymously, that does not matter... >> >> But you know the impact of a first bad UI impression... >> It would ruin tons of efforts I know you spent cleaning the infrastructure. >> I believe such cleaning is very ambitious and rarely rewarding in the >> short term... >> But I'd really like to be more supportive, it's so essential for >> building the future. >> >> So before ranting loud, I digged a bit further: could it be this >> warning I had at startup about obsolete VM, yes that was it! >> So if you are episodic user like me : >> >> ******** DON'T FORGET TO DOWNLOAD A PHARO SPECIFIC VM ************* >> >> I already spent way more time on this than I wished, hope my mistake >> helps someone else. >> ( over-estimating pharo planned obsolescence period is indeed a >> mistake ;) why would the VM be handled differently ? ) >> >> Last thing, maybe you should insist on the download page that 2.0 >> REQUIRES a pharo specific VM. >> Not sure I would have read it, but then it would be entirely my fault. >> > > Yes, we should mention that, especially since 2.0 now entered beta stage. > > But apart from this, i am really surprised that you was unable to upload MC > package with 'obsolete' VM.. No problem to load/merge MC,. The problem I encountered was most probably related to keyboard events and their interpretation. It disappeared using correct VM. Nicolas > That warning is really just a complaint that you should get more recent VM. > And unless you using file browser (which won't function properly on older vms) > the other parts of system should work well. > At least, this is what i experienced.. but since my development image > is 2-3 months behind bleeding edge, > (and only few days ago i migrated to most recent one), i cannot > guarantee if it still like that i saying :) > >> Nicolas > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

Dec. 8, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Please use 20431 I rollback 20432 and 20433

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Dec 8, 2012, at 9:25 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > Hi guys > > Sorry for my mistake. I rollbacked 20432 and 20433 since the changes are too intrusive. https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-2.0/75/ > > Stef

Dec. 8, 2012

[Pharo-project] Please use 20431 I rollback 20432 and 20433

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Hi guys Sorry for my mistake. I rollbacked 20432 and 20433 since the changes are too intrusive. Stef

Dec. 8, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] eating some obsolete dog food

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Dec 7, 2012, at 11:59 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > This is a long time since I did not contribute to Pharo, so I tried > with something easy... > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=7108 > > I downloaded latest successful build, > Pharo2.0a > Latest update: #20433 I broke the last build by integrating progress bar changesâ¦ :( > Then I updated the 5 methods from a MC merge, and... > Err... I cannot type my initials ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H full name > The dialog insists on selecting any letter I type and next letter will > override the previous one. > I finally published anonymously, that does not matterâ¦ I thikn that this is the bug I introduced by merging cmaillo' code I will rollback if it is not fixed. > But you know the impact of a first bad UI impression... > It would ruin tons of efforts I know you spent cleaning the infrastructure. > I believe such cleaning is very ambitious and rarely rewarding in the > short termâ¦ This is worse that than we use 2.0 everyday now sometimes we make mistake. > But I'd really like to be more supportive, it's so essential for > building the future. > > So before ranting loud, I digged a bit further: could it be this > warning I had at startup about obsolete VM, yes that was it! No I know the problem: change 20432 and 20432 > So if you are episodic user like me : > > ******** DON'T FORGET TO DOWNLOAD A PHARO SPECIFIC VM ************* > > I already spent way more time on this than I wished, hope my mistake > helps someone else. > ( over-estimating pharo planned obsolescence period is indeed a > mistake ;) why would the VM be handled differently ? ) Because we need some specific changes for pharo. > Last thing, maybe you should insist on the download page that 2.0 > REQUIRES a pharo specific VM. > Not sure I would have read it, but then it would be entirely my fault. Pharo 2.0 went beta thursday. > > Nicolas >

Dec. 8, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Progress Update

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Dec 7, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > please fix the progress bars. i downloaded latest image today > and it blocks all existing windows from being accessible. > the only cure i found is tell world to remove all windows. > new windows working normally. Or I will rollback the change. Sorry my fault. > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

Dec. 8, 2012