On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:17, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Max Leske <maxleske@gmail.com <mailto:maxleske@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 23 Mar 2015, at 09:06, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:56, Dale Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com <mailto:dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>> wrote:
Damien,
I'm using zeroconf for Pharo 1.2, 1.4 and 2.0 ... I still test Metacello against Pharo1.1 ... I would use zeroconf with 1.3 but there is something funkily different between what is available on zeroconf for 1.3 and what actually "works" for for 1.3 (https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/30567/PharoCore-1.3-13328.zip <https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/30567/PharoCore-1.3-13328.zip>).
why? I do not think anyone is using Pharo < 2.0 (and not even 2.0, with the exception of some legacy apps) this âforever backward compatibilityâ ends up being really complicated.
I am actually, Pharo1.1.1, Pharo1.3 and Pharo1.4 (donât judge⦠:) ).
I do not judge. I pity :))
It is ok to use them, but people should not expect that packages and framework will be updated. (and this even defeats the purpose: people use old version *becasue they do not want change*. If we update stuff under their feet (Zinc, Metacelloâ¦) this will lead to exactly what they do not want. We should consider old version to be frozen, *including* the frameworks and tools. Marcus