2009/12/16 Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com>:
2009/12/16 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
I will reply because this situation is silly and keith has some good points.
Yes, silly, by fact that currently there are two groups of people each putting improvements over different places of merely same thing, duplicating an effort(s). But anyways, its better than sitting and waiting for Great New Thing (c) to be released by someone. I just hope, that at some day both forks will adopt DeltaStreams to make our life a bit easier in respect of sharing the code.
Sometimes it's good to see two different solutions. It makes you think twice. Nicolas
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: keith <keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk> Date: 2009/12/16 Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Stuff To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
So the question is, has ever been considered to simply build the bridge between communities and to use the PharoCore image as the base for Squeak?
This wouldn't work for the same reasons that it wouldn't work to use a Squeak-trunk image as the basis for Pharo. You should propose that at some point just to see what kind of reaction you get ;-)
Cheers, Â Â - Andreas
Yes please propose it. That is an excellent idea. Lets use the PharoCore image as the base for future Squeak releases! It would work excellently, it might require some humility from Andreas. In my opinion it is the only sensible way forward. Let me divulge a little secret here, the biggest reason that we kept the original 3.11 development always said to be about "process" and not about the actual release image, is that with a decent image building and testing process in place it would then have been possible to build and test a future squeak release pilot on top of some of the pharo-core packages. For us Pharo was simply a pilot project moving the core forward that we could borrow the best bits from it as appropriate. By adopting pharo in carefully integrated pieces we would perhaps of stood a chance of keeping the community together. The annoying thing was that Pharo team seemed to be insisting on diverging far more than was necessary and consistently refused to adopt any shared values or code that would have made this approach easier, we really need as a starting point, shared code loading tools, package management tools, and shared testing tools at the very least. i.e. Installer, and MC1.5/6 were developed with this in mind, and so was SUnit-improved, but the Pharo team refused to touch either of these projects. The more that the squeak-core image changes (i.e. in trunk) without tracking pharo's core packages the more diverse and impossible future integration will become. The old 3.11 effort was about having the tools to enable packages to be developed and tested in both Pharo and Squeak and all other forks, and then extending this to suggest common core packages as a way forward for everyone. So now that our to-be carefully planned evolution of squeak-core, using pharo for inspiration, has been trashed by random hacking on trunk, adopting PharoCore as a base image is probably the viable way forward for this community to remain viable. You already know that I don't see the squeak community as viable, since it eats its young. Sooner or later the board or someone will realize this, they will get elected to the board, and all those of you who have been working hard on trunk will discover that all your contributions have been wasted. Never mind eh. Keith
-- Cédrick
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project