On 22 March 2011 19:26, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
2011/3/22 Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com>:
On 22 March 2011 13:28, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Mar 22, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
+1
Now condenses change should work too :)
I am slowly adopting a radical "if we don't test it, it's will brake" point of view. I now even say: If we don't test it, it *should* be broken! Because it is dead code and should be removed.
I like a systematic approach. :)
Agree, If not maintained it won't work. If not tested it's not maintained. So your sentence must be true in most cases (except case of luck)
And if not maintained, the choices are - revive - or remove and that is the Pharo way, Squeak being more conservative.
It is a realistic approach. Obviously there is not much resources in Pharo task forces to spend them on something which nobody maintains/cares anymore. It is better to focus energy on something that everybody needs and make sure it works well.
Nicolas
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.