Le 03/10/2014 21:48, stepharo a écrit :
On 3/10/14 17:07, Thierry Goubier wrote:
Hi Esteban,
I'm not sure my answer will please you or stef, and maybe I shouldn't voice it, staying being a "customer" instead of contributing "the way you want it". Hard words, but yours are hard too.
I'd say simply that Pharo is successfull, fairly successfull for someone like me. It allows me to engage in complex work, in what I do best and what affords me to be paid and have the freedom to use Pharo. Some of those things suppose that I maintain and extend fairly complex packages on top of Pharo, and deal with permanent, multiple overlapping interruptions (meeting, administrative work, travels, etc...).
Same here :)
Pharo is great, it allows me to build a significant activity on top of it.
Some of the consequences of that success? I'm looking at things that works now, not in Pharo 5, 6, or 7. I'm a bit frightened by grandiose rewritting attempts which will be usable in a version or 2, at best, and leave an unsatisfying "now" situation. I'll carefully evaluate what new stuff is integrated. New stuff I look to see if they are usable (libcgit integration, TxText) and what I see is stuff that builds on unstable core libs extensions (NativeBoost, Athens) Why Athens would be unstable? or nativeBoost?
NativeBoost is not unstable for me, but why libcgit is on a bleeding edge NativeBoost version then? Athens is stable for me, but I believe that TxText requires a bleeding edge Athens.
on top of an already unstable version (4.0), and I'm really not impressed by the software development process.
what should it be? You know Igor will not be paid in a month from now, JB should find a job and esteban has two years to prove that the consortium flies. So if we do not clean the event and windowing systems, rick and thales will be in trouble. So we are fighting against time.
Thales is not an easy customer :) I know; apart from parser know-how, there is nothing that I can sell outside (projects, etc..) about Pharo. And if I'm not successfull, then its no more Pharo for me.
The end result is, when I see a bug, I'm already at least two versions behind you guys...
Why. I do not get why Pharo 3 would be unstable and that far from Pharo 20.
I'm on Pharo 3. Some of the stuff I'm interested is on Pharo 4 + bleeding edge version of core Pharo subsystem... two versions off from 3 for me. Libcgit is like that: its Pharo 4 + Bleeding edge native boost not yet in Pharo 4 + libcgit (and from ESUG, I get that it will require an entire refactoring of Monticello and a complete new on disk format). It's really shaping up like a long, long term target.
so there's nothing worth reporting. There is some progress on the way things are being done (thanks Marcus for doing the deprecation API backporting on 3.0) and not much on others (and I speak of methodology, not of new features being added on).
If you have the feeling that I don't contribute the way I should or the way you would like, step back and ask yourself if this is not my "unspoken" way of me saying that I don't find a way to contribute, or that contributing effectively is too costly.
And look! This is not a matter of resources, but maybe a matter of slowing down a bit, so that the poor community members with limited resources like me that are not full time on Pharo 4.0 development may catch up :) And please, no more rejection of feedback, even negative. It just gives me the feeling you are overstreched, and that Pharo has a problem setting its goals.
Thierry, I do not have the impression that we go fast. You see we started Athens more than two years ago. It is a success for external tools like moose and Roassal but without TxText Athens will just be a nice package not change the face of Pharo and we will get there.
I believe you're right about those; but I'd say that the way it's being done is a bit worrying. Why? Because for me, TxText is already more advanced than the current text editor: the ability to change the cursor, probably a better layout, etc... Should already been integrated, then, if its already better. But you still have the font bug that Alexandre complained about... how many months ago? So, as long as its not resolved, TxText can't be integrated (and additionally, I'm sure that there is aliasing issues on my machines: fonts in Roassal don't look as nice as in Morphic). And now, to make integration easier, we pile more stuff on top of the existing, bound to be removed, infrastructure: Glamour, Rubric, etc... And both Glamour and Spec don't make it easy to solve Morphic bugs. I value your ambition a lot :) But I also feel that it stresses the Rmod team, and it leaks over the community.
Writing the chapter and maintaining Smacc is already a nice tribute to the community. Just continue that and we will be happy :)
Thanks. John gave me plenty of fixes and I'm preparing a new version of SmaCC, and adding GUI tools (thinking of Guillaume needs and my needs as well). I certainly hope I'll be able to contribute on other things, still :) Thierry