- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Problem to save packages

by Roca Vincent

Hi, I'm a new Pharo user (Pharo 5.0). I have created a package and now I just want to save it in the package-cache folder. But, when I try to do this using the Monticello Browser, I get an exception telling me the file I'm trying to save does not exist. I already managed to save some packages but I can't anymore. Thanks in advance for your help.

Feb. 18, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #572: 17913-LegacyWeakSubscription-should-be-merged-with-WeakAnnouncementSubscription

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #572 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #879 was integrated: "17913-LegacyWeakSubscription-should-be-merged-with-WeakAnnouncementSubscription" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/879 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17913 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Feb. 18, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #571: 21366-Add-a-good-printOn-method-to-SHRange

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #571 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #910 was integrated: "21366-Add-a-good-printOn-method-to-SHRange" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/910 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21366 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Feb. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] we should include ReferenceFinder as part of Pharo

by Stephane Ducasse

I would add it. And I would also add the tools of Yuriy on matching expressions with RBParseTree. We can manage them with their own baseline. The fact that we do not have to update versions is a game changer. On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Recently I was hunting a leak and I found that what we have now (pointers explorer) is not very good, so I dug into ReferenceFinder (in catalog) and everything became a lot easier. > So, I wonder: Shouldnât we include it as part of the standard distribution? > > (also, taking into account we want to remove EyeInspector and related tools and pointer explored is based on it?) > > cheers, > Esteban

Feb. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] About UFFI documentation deprecation.

by Stephane Ducasse

Take all the questions/answers you will get most frequent question and this is cheap to do. There is FAQ session at the end of the booklet. The more stupid people like me will be able to use UFFI the better Pharo will be. We should help C-agnostic people to use and master UFFI. Stef On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > >> On 17 Feb 2018, at 14:56, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> mmmâ¦ message received :) > > It was not directed especially to you, but you get the idea: it does not matter how cool the software is, it needs proper documentation for others to derive value from it. > >> But! I have to declare: uFFI booklet is not bad. Is just incompleteâ¦ (there are three small sections missing). >> We will never cover all possible usages and for that my idea was always to add âannexesâ with all problems emerging and answered on the listâ¦ so to answer also something from other mail, yes, I was planning to add that to documentation. >> >> cheers! >> Esteban >> >>> On 17 Feb 2018, at 10:34, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>> Fair enough. >>> >>> "If it is not documented, it does not exist" >>> >>>> On 17 Feb 2018, at 08:37, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> About https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/Booklet-uFFI >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear (poor) reader, since years I tried to convince people >>>> understanding FFI to finish this documentation. >>>> But I failed. Apparently documenting FFI is not important enough. So I >>>> stopped to try and in the future >>>> I will remove simply this booklet because there is nothing as bad as a >>>> half done unfinished documentation. >>>> If within 6 months this documentation stays in this bad format, I will >>>> remove it from this repository. >>>> 15 of Febrary 2018. By 15 of August if nothing changed I will remove >>>> this project and all the associated infrastructure. >>>> >>>> S. Ducasse - ''Even jedi cannot move mountain.'' >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

Feb. 17, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #570: 21341-deprecate-theNonMetaclass

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #570 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #909 was integrated: "21341-deprecate-theNonMetaclass" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/909 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21341 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Feb. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] About UFFI documentation deprecation.

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 17 Feb 2018, at 14:56, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > mmmâ¦ message received :) It was not directed especially to you, but you get the idea: it does not matter how cool the software is, it needs proper documentation for others to derive value from it. > But! I have to declare: uFFI booklet is not bad. Is just incompleteâ¦ (there are three small sections missing). > We will never cover all possible usages and for that my idea was always to add âannexesâ with all problems emerging and answered on the listâ¦ so to answer also something from other mail, yes, I was planning to add that to documentation. > > cheers! > Esteban > >> On 17 Feb 2018, at 10:34, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> Fair enough. >> >> "If it is not documented, it does not exist" >> >>> On 17 Feb 2018, at 08:37, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> About https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/Booklet-uFFI >>> >>> >>> Dear (poor) reader, since years I tried to convince people >>> understanding FFI to finish this documentation. >>> But I failed. Apparently documenting FFI is not important enough. So I >>> stopped to try and in the future >>> I will remove simply this booklet because there is nothing as bad as a >>> half done unfinished documentation. >>> If within 6 months this documentation stays in this bad format, I will >>> remove it from this repository. >>> 15 of Febrary 2018. By 15 of August if nothing changed I will remove >>> this project and all the associated infrastructure. >>> >>> S. Ducasse - ''Even jedi cannot move mountain.'' >>> >> >> > >

Feb. 17, 2018

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #569: 21325 FileServices class itemsForDirectory: should not use #selector

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #569 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #906 was integrated: "21325 FileServices class itemsForDirectory: should not use #selector" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/906 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21325 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Feb. 17, 2018

Re: [Pharo-dev] About UFFI documentation deprecation.

by Esteban Lorenzano

mmmâ¦ message received :) But! I have to declare: uFFI booklet is not bad. Is just incompleteâ¦ (there are three small sections missing). We will never cover all possible usages and for that my idea was always to add âannexesâ with all problems emerging and answered on the listâ¦ so to answer also something from other mail, yes, I was planning to add that to documentation. cheers! Esteban > On 17 Feb 2018, at 10:34, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > Fair enough. > > "If it is not documented, it does not exist" > >> On 17 Feb 2018, at 08:37, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> About https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/Booklet-uFFI >> >> >> Dear (poor) reader, since years I tried to convince people >> understanding FFI to finish this documentation. >> But I failed. Apparently documenting FFI is not important enough. So I >> stopped to try and in the future >> I will remove simply this booklet because there is nothing as bad as a >> half done unfinished documentation. >> If within 6 months this documentation stays in this bad format, I will >> remove it from this repository. >> 15 of Febrary 2018. By 15 of August if nothing changed I will remove >> this project and all the associated infrastructure. >> >> S. Ducasse - ''Even jedi cannot move mountain.'' >> > >

Feb. 17, 2018

we should include ReferenceFinder as part of Pharo

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, Recently I was hunting a leak and I found that what we have now (pointers explorer) is not very good, so I dug into ReferenceFinder (in catalog) and everything became a lot easier. So, I wonder: Shouldnât we include it as part of the standard distribution? (also, taking into account we want to remove EyeInspector and related tools and pointer explored is based on it?) cheers, Esteban

Feb. 17, 2018