Re: [Pharo-project] Getting a functionning unstable image
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. Marcus
So it was my fault finally: it's because I was too early, and started from Pharo0.x, then applied this automated condenseSources:
Oh.
That explains why I can never upgrade from a newer image... I brought my 0.x image up to 1.2 by some tricky manual MC loading and/or selective loading. But now, things shall be easier :)
Yes... the thing is that everythign that we do not test will not work. We do not test updating 0.x --> 1.2. It *will* be broken. (And there is the question if it makes sense to keep these things working. I vote for investing into a declarative bootstrap instead, far more important)
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
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. :)
    Marcus
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
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. Nicolas
    Marcus
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
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.
participants (3)
-
Igor Stasenko -
Marcus Denker -
Nicolas Cellier