El dom, 23-05-2010 a las 09:39 +0200, Nicolas Cellier escribió:
Miguel, It sounds like a defensive attitude. What good can emerge from sharing such mood? You don't deliver any technical argumentation, but "I think it's wrong" and "it upsets me". I'm sure you have more rational reasons to dislike squeak usage, that would be interesting to expose.
I don't dislike Squeak usage but changing a emerging technology that is being used in a given way and that appears to be working (I've done the Magma configuration and I tested it worked on Squeak and Pharo) but this new Squeak usage of Metacello really discourages to try to keep the Magma for other distros than Pharo. It really is a gratuitous change and I don't really have the time to sync two ways to use the same technology.
Squeak people are not going to rape your wife nor kill your children.
Again, is not the people, is the gratuitous change for a perceived problem with Metacello current usage.
Qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons
No sé que significa pero supongo que es relevante en esta discusión. Cheers
Nicolas
2010/5/22 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <miguel.coba@gmail.com>:
But, but...
One thing that I really don't understand is this:
Squeak people hasn't used the current Metacello "use-case". Squeak people without use it and see if really has problems (nothing that can't be solved when it appears) Squeak people proposed a new way to use Metacello, completly different than the one is being used Squeak arguments were about some potential problems with having configurations outside the image Squeak arguments were abouth the potential advantages of having a browser that browses locally (but as Mariano said, it must be updated from net before having the very last package tested to work available in the browser) instead of going to the network for the list.
So, this, hey look what I found, they use it this way, but I think that we should use it that other way, no matter if it is really a problem to use it the way the other people use it really upsets me.
Heck, Pharo even build the released dev images with Metacello. That is a "real" world usage and not words.
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 16:17 -0700, Dale Henrichs escribió:
I had suggested that they not use the ConfigurationOf prefix for the Squeak configuration package so that cross platform configurations could continue to be used ... I would hope that folks continue to to create cross platform packages ... the onus on copying shouldn't be on the developer, but the folks that want a managed list of configs:)
I would think that the managed list could be harvested from the ConfigurationOf configs without any direct developer involvement...afterall computers should be used for the things they are good at:)
It will be interesting to see how the managed list idea evolves...
Dale ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez [miguel.coba@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:42 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Cross-fork Metacello configurations
El vie, 21-05-2010 a las 09:13 -0700, Sean P. DeNigris escribió:
I created a Squeak/Pharo SSpec, which puts the fork-specific world menu code into a Platform package.
As I work on the config, I came up against Pharo using Object as a subclass, but the Squeak Inbox requiring (because of the browser tool) MetacelloConfiguration.
What would be the best/easiest way to deal with this?
If the configs have to be forked, then Metacello really loses value (i.e. #squeak and #pharo). And, I do a lot of work in both forks, so it would be a shame to pick one to upload to and not share work that has already been done with half the users.
That was one of the problems of the Configuration Package proposed by Andreas. Promotes copy&paste of configurations (bad bad) and in the long term forks and completely rework to create configurations for Squeak and a different (although similar) for Pharo. As you say, it doesn't matter that Metacello is capable of installing cross-platform packages. With independently created configurations for the same packages, is has been stole of its usefulness and is discouraging Pharo users that have developed ConfigurationOfXXX that worked both in Squeak and Pharo in the past.
Thanks. Sean
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx