Re: [Pharo-project] [BetaTesting] [ANN] Pharo-1.0-10515-rc3dev10.03.1
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
Hi Mariano,
I wonder why you mentioned O2 issues below because O2 is not in Pharo anymore, isn't it?
Sorry Adrian. I forgot about this email. I answer to the mail as it has an excellent question and my bad :) I put the O2 issues because: - I think it is a "official package that works on Pharo" even if we don't know what a official package is. - I have to create a version of the metacello configuration for O2 and I wanted to put the issues in the "description" of the release - The O2 issues were submitted in Pharo issue tracking, thus, I wanted to put them as closed and put "integrated in PharoXXX" - I changed the welcome workspace to load this new version of O2 However, it doesn't mean that O2 is now included in Dev images. Now you made me realize that this can be confusing. So, what should I do ? I am all ears :)
Cheers, Adrian
On Mar 20, 2010, at 20:40 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi folks. We are proud to announce the (hopefully) last RC3 for Pharo 1.0.
This image is based in PharoCore-1.0-10515rc3. The image also contain lot of fixes and improvements of external packages:
These, are the fixed issues of the external tools:
OB: Issues 1891, 1748, 1670, 1667, 1705, 1667
O2: issues 1887, 1312, 1429, 1886, 2073
New Inspector: issues 1783, 1499
Refactoring Browser: issue 2108
The link is:
https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/26680/Pharo-1.0-10515-rc3dev10.03.1...
Cheers
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Hi Mariano, No problem. I was just a bit confused because I was not sure whether you intended to add O2 back into Pharo 1.0 ;) Cheers, Adrian On Mar 24, 2010, at 13:49 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
Hi Mariano,
I wonder why you mentioned O2 issues below because O2 is not in Pharo anymore, isn't it?
Sorry Adrian. I forgot about this email. I answer to the mail as it has an excellent question and my bad :)
I put the O2 issues because:
- I think it is a "official package that works on Pharo" even if we don't know what a official package is. - I have to create a version of the metacello configuration for O2 and I wanted to put the issues in the "description" of the release - The O2 issues were submitted in Pharo issue tracking, thus, I wanted to put them as closed and put "integrated in PharoXXX" - I changed the welcome workspace to load this new version of O2
However, it doesn't mean that O2 is now included in Dev images. Now you made me realize that this can be confusing. So, what should I do ? I am all ears :)
Cheers, Adrian
On Mar 20, 2010, at 20:40 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi folks. We are proud to announce the (hopefully) last RC3 for Pharo 1.0.
This image is based in PharoCore-1.0-10515rc3. The image also contain lot of fixes and improvements of external packages:
These, are the fixed issues of the external tools:
OB: Issues 1891, 1748, 1670, 1667, 1705, 1667
O2: issues 1887, 1312, 1429, 1886, 2073
New Inspector: issues 1783, 1499
Refactoring Browser: issue 2108
The link is:
https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/26680/Pharo-1.0-10515-rc3dev10.03.1...
Cheers
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
Hi Mariano,
No problem. I was just a bit confused because I was not sure whether you intended to add O2 back into Pharo 1.0 ;)
Yes, I know. But I asked what do you think because I don't want to get more users confused ahahhaha
Cheers, Adrian
On Mar 24, 2010, at 13:49 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
Hi Mariano,
I wonder why you mentioned O2 issues below because O2 is not in Pharo anymore, isn't it?
Sorry Adrian. I forgot about this email. I answer to the mail as it has an excellent question and my bad :)
I put the O2 issues because:
- I think it is a "official package that works on Pharo" even if we don't know what a official package is. - I have to create a version of the metacello configuration for O2 and I wanted to put the issues in the "description" of the release - The O2 issues were submitted in Pharo issue tracking, thus, I wanted to put them as closed and put "integrated in PharoXXX" - I changed the welcome workspace to load this new version of O2
However, it doesn't mean that O2 is now included in Dev images. Now you made me realize that this can be confusing. So, what should I do ? I am all ears :)
Cheers, Adrian
On Mar 20, 2010, at 20:40 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi folks. We are proud to announce the (hopefully) last RC3 for Pharo 1.0.
This image is based in PharoCore-1.0-10515rc3. The image also contain lot of fixes and improvements of external packages:
These, are the fixed issues of the external tools:
OB: Issues 1891, 1748, 1670, 1667, 1705, 1667
O2: issues 1887, 1312, 1429, 1886, 2073
New Inspector: issues 1783, 1499
Refactoring Browser: issue 2108
The link is:
https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/26680/Pharo-1.0-10515-rc3dev10.03.1...
Cheers
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On Mar 24, 2010, at 13:56 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
Hi Mariano,
No problem. I was just a bit confused because I was not sure whether you intended to add O2 back into Pharo 1.0 ;)
Yes, I know. But I asked what do you think because I don't want to get more users confused ahahhaha
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Think about what? Adrian
Cheers, Adrian
On Mar 24, 2010, at 13:49 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
Hi Mariano,
I wonder why you mentioned O2 issues below because O2 is not in Pharo anymore, isn't it?
Sorry Adrian. I forgot about this email. I answer to the mail as it has an excellent question and my bad :)
I put the O2 issues because:
- I think it is a "official package that works on Pharo" even if we don't know what a official package is. - I have to create a version of the metacello configuration for O2 and I wanted to put the issues in the "description" of the release - The O2 issues were submitted in Pharo issue tracking, thus, I wanted to put them as closed and put "integrated in PharoXXX" - I changed the welcome workspace to load this new version of O2
However, it doesn't mean that O2 is now included in Dev images. Now you made me realize that this can be confusing. So, what should I do ? I am all ears :)
Cheers, Adrian
On Mar 20, 2010, at 20:40 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi folks. We are proud to announce the (hopefully) last RC3 for Pharo 1.0.
This image is based in PharoCore-1.0-10515rc3. The image also contain lot of fixes and improvements of external packages:
These, are the fixed issues of the external tools:
OB: Issues 1891, 1748, 1670, 1667, 1705, 1667
O2: issues 1887, 1312, 1429, 1886, 2073
New Inspector: issues 1783, 1499
Refactoring Browser: issue 2108
The link is:
https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/26680/Pharo-1.0-10515-rc3dev10.03.1...
Cheers
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
I do not have a definite answer. I personally prefer O2 instead of OB. OB is more stable though, which is a big advantage. Maybe a pool will help the community to say its word on it? Whether it wants to see O2 included or not in Pharo 1.0. Like this, you will not have to make an arbitrary decision. just an idea. Cheers, Alexandre On 24 Mar 2010, at 08:49, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote: Hi Mariano,
I wonder why you mentioned O2 issues below because O2 is not in Pharo anymore, isn't it?
Sorry Adrian. I forgot about this email. I answer to the mail as it has an excellent question and my bad :)
I put the O2 issues because:
- I think it is a "official package that works on Pharo" even if we don't know what a official package is. - I have to create a version of the metacello configuration for O2 and I wanted to put the issues in the "description" of the release - The O2 issues were submitted in Pharo issue tracking, thus, I wanted to put them as closed and put "integrated in PharoXXX" - I changed the welcome workspace to load this new version of O2
However, it doesn't mean that O2 is now included in Dev images. Now you made me realize that this can be confusing. So, what should I do ? I am all ears :)
Cheers, Adrian
On Mar 20, 2010, at 20:40 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi folks. We are proud to announce the (hopefully) last RC3 for Pharo 1.0.
This image is based in PharoCore-1.0-10515rc3. The image also contain lot of fixes and improvements of external packages:
These, are the fixed issues of the external tools:
OB: Issues 1891, 1748, 1670, 1667, 1705, 1667
O2: issues 1887, 1312, 1429, 1886, 2073
New Inspector: issues 1783, 1499
Refactoring Browser: issue 2108
The link is: https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/26680/Pharo-1.0-10515-rc3dev10.03.1...
Cheers
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Sorry. Want I wanted to ask is...for next Pharo releases, I do the same but making clear O2 is not by default ? or I just don't say anything about O2 in the release ? On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre@bergel.eu>wrote:
I do not have a definite answer. I personally prefer O2 instead of OB. OB is more stable though, which is a big advantage. Maybe a pool will help the community to say its word on it? Whether it wants to see O2 included or not in Pharo 1.0. Like this, you will not have to make an arbitrary decision. just an idea.
Cheers, Alexandre
On 24 Mar 2010, at 08:49, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote: Hi Mariano,
I wonder why you mentioned O2 issues below because O2 is not in Pharo anymore, isn't it?
Sorry Adrian. I forgot about this email. I answer to the mail as it has an excellent question and my bad :)
I put the O2 issues because:
- I think it is a "official package that works on Pharo" even if we don't know what a official package is. - I have to create a version of the metacello configuration for O2 and I wanted to put the issues in the "description" of the release - The O2 issues were submitted in Pharo issue tracking, thus, I wanted to put them as closed and put "integrated in PharoXXX" - I changed the welcome workspace to load this new version of O2
However, it doesn't mean that O2 is now included in Dev images. Now you made me realize that this can be confusing. So, what should I do ? I am all ears :)
Cheers, Adrian
On Mar 20, 2010, at 20:40 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi folks. We are proud to announce the (hopefully) last RC3 for Pharo 1.0.
This image is based in PharoCore-1.0-10515rc3. The image also contain lot of fixes and improvements of external packages:
These, are the fixed issues of the external tools:
OB: Issues 1891, 1748, 1670, 1667, 1705, 1667
O2: issues 1887, 1312, 1429, 1886, 2073
New Inspector: issues 1783, 1499
Refactoring Browser: issue 2108
The link is:
https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/26680/Pharo-1.0-10515-rc3dev10.03.1...
Cheers
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
For Pharo 1.0 it is clear that it does not include O2. For Pharo 1.1 we can consider adding it again if it is stable and people express their interest in it. So, Mariano, until we add O2 back into the main release, you don't need to mention it anymore as part of the release log. Of course, if there are new versions and fixes please mention them in a separate thread as it is good to communicate any progress of internal and external packages. Cheers, Adrian On Mar 24, 2010, at 14:15 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Sorry. Want I wanted to ask is...for next Pharo releases, I do the same but making clear O2 is not by default ? or I just don't say anything about O2 in the release ?
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre@bergel.eu>wrote:
I do not have a definite answer. I personally prefer O2 instead of OB. OB is more stable though, which is a big advantage. Maybe a pool will help the community to say its word on it? Whether it wants to see O2 included or not in Pharo 1.0. Like this, you will not have to make an arbitrary decision. just an idea.
Cheers, Alexandre
On 24 Mar 2010, at 08:49, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote: Hi Mariano,
I wonder why you mentioned O2 issues below because O2 is not in Pharo anymore, isn't it?
Sorry Adrian. I forgot about this email. I answer to the mail as it has an excellent question and my bad :)
I put the O2 issues because:
- I think it is a "official package that works on Pharo" even if we don't know what a official package is. - I have to create a version of the metacello configuration for O2 and I wanted to put the issues in the "description" of the release - The O2 issues were submitted in Pharo issue tracking, thus, I wanted to put them as closed and put "integrated in PharoXXX" - I changed the welcome workspace to load this new version of O2
However, it doesn't mean that O2 is now included in Dev images. Now you made me realize that this can be confusing. So, what should I do ? I am all ears :)
Cheers, Adrian
On Mar 20, 2010, at 20:40 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi folks. We are proud to announce the (hopefully) last RC3 for Pharo 1.0.
This image is based in PharoCore-1.0-10515rc3. The image also contain lot of fixes and improvements of external packages:
These, are the fixed issues of the external tools:
OB: Issues 1891, 1748, 1670, 1667, 1705, 1667
O2: issues 1887, 1312, 1429, 1886, 2073
New Inspector: issues 1783, 1499
Refactoring Browser: issue 2108
The link is:
https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/26680/Pharo-1.0-10515-rc3dev10.03.1...
Cheers
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Sorry. Want I wanted to ask is...for next Pharo releases, I do the same but making clear O2 is not by default ? or I just don't say anything about O2 in the release ?
While choice is a good thing it does make things more complicated and the PBE book will need to just choose one I guess. It should be easier to swap betweem OB or O2 though, maybe not necessarily both in the same image at the same time but easy to load/unload. Have they really moved that far apart that the initial idea of OB-Enhancements is not possible? -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/BetaTesting-ANN-Pharo-1-0-10515-rc3dev10-03-1-tp1676125... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Mar 25, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Geert Claes wrote:
Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Sorry. Want I wanted to ask is...for next Pharo releases, I do the same but making clear O2 is not by default ? or I just don't say anything about O2 in the release ?
While choice is a good thing it does make things more complicated and the PBE book will need to just choose one I guess. It should be easier to swap betweem OB or O2 though, maybe not necessarily both in the same image at the same time but easy to load/unload.
Have they really moved that far apart that the initial idea of OB-Enhancements is not possible?
1.0 is *DONE* *DONE* *DONE*. We should not discuss changing now everthing again. We can do that for 1.1 1.0 does not have O2. So for the book, there will be a special image with O2 loaded. Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
+1 1.1 is waiting for you guys and it is sexy and requires people to use it :) On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Mar 25, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Geert Claes wrote:
Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Sorry. Want I wanted to ask is...for next Pharo releases, I do the same but making clear O2 is not by default ? or I just don't say anything about O2 in the release ?
While choice is a good thing it does make things more complicated and the PBE book will need to just choose one I guess. It should be easier to swap betweem OB or O2 though, maybe not necessarily both in the same image at the same time but easy to load/unload.
Have they really moved that far apart that the initial idea of OB-Enhancements is not possible?
1.0 is *DONE* *DONE* *DONE*. We should not discuss changing now everthing again. We can do that for 1.1
1.0 does not have O2.
So for the book, there will be a special image with O2 loaded.
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Hi, But if it is done, why don't you just release the official one? Cheers, Doru On 25 Mar 2010, at 09:25, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
+1
1.1 is waiting for you guys and it is sexy and requires people to use it :)
On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Mar 25, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Geert Claes wrote:
Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Sorry. Want I wanted to ask is...for next Pharo releases, I do the same but making clear O2 is not by default ? or I just don't say anything about O2 in the release ?
While choice is a good thing it does make things more complicated and the PBE book will need to just choose one I guess. It should be easier to swap betweem OB or O2 though, maybe not necessarily both in the same image at the same time but easy to load/unload.
Have they really moved that far apart that the initial idea of OB-Enhancements is not possible?
1.0 is *DONE* *DONE* *DONE*. We should not discuss changing now everthing again. We can do that for 1.1
1.0 does not have O2.
So for the book, there will be a special image with O2 loaded.
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
good question. I'm doing 1.1 and 1.0 is not in my radar. We should learn for 1.1 to make it faster and one way is to get tests greener before. Stef
Hi,
But if it is done, why don't you just release the official one?
Cheers, Doru
On 25 Mar 2010, at 09:25, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
+1
1.1 is waiting for you guys and it is sexy and requires people to use it :)
On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Mar 25, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Geert Claes wrote:
Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Sorry. Want I wanted to ask is...for next Pharo releases, I do the same but making clear O2 is not by default ? or I just don't say anything about O2 in the release ?
While choice is a good thing it does make things more complicated and the PBE book will need to just choose one I guess. It should be easier to swap betweem OB or O2 though, maybe not necessarily both in the same image at the same time but easy to load/unload.
Have they really moved that far apart that the initial idea of OB-Enhancements is not possible?
1.0 is *DONE* *DONE* *DONE*. We should not discuss changing now everthing again. We can do that for 1.1
1.0 does not have O2.
So for the book, there will be a special image with O2 loaded.
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Because there are a few things left that still need to be done for the release: - make all tests in Pharo 1.0 pass - write a clean and complete change log (I did a pass this morning) [1] - use different Metacello version? - create a one-click image Cheers, Adrian [1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ActionsInPharoOneDotOne On Mar 25, 2010, at 10:20 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
good question. I'm doing 1.1 and 1.0 is not in my radar. We should learn for 1.1 to make it faster and one way is to get tests greener before.
Stef
Hi,
But if it is done, why don't you just release the official one?
Cheers, Doru
On 25 Mar 2010, at 09:25, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
+1
1.1 is waiting for you guys and it is sexy and requires people to use it :)
On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Mar 25, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Geert Claes wrote:
Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Sorry. Want I wanted to ask is...for next Pharo releases, I do the same but making clear O2 is not by default ? or I just don't say anything about O2 in the release ?
While choice is a good thing it does make things more complicated and the PBE book will need to just choose one I guess. It should be easier to swap betweem OB or O2 though, maybe not necessarily both in the same image at the same time but easy to load/unload.
Have they really moved that far apart that the initial idea of OB-Enhancements is not possible?
1.0 is *DONE* *DONE* *DONE*. We should not discuss changing now everthing again. We can do that for 1.1
1.0 does not have O2.
So for the book, there will be a special image with O2 loaded.
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Adrian, 1.0-beta.25 has been released. So it is now _stable_ . No new issues have appeared, yet, but if any do appear I'll do a dot release. Dale ----- "Adrian Lienhard" <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote: | Because there are a few things left that still need to be done for the | release: | - make all tests in Pharo 1.0 pass | - write a clean and complete change log (I did a pass this morning) | [1] | - use different Metacello version? | - create a one-click image | | Cheers, | Adrian | | [1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ActionsInPharoOneDotOne | | On Mar 25, 2010, at 10:20 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote: | | > good question. | > I'm doing 1.1 and 1.0 is not in my radar. | > We should learn for 1.1 to make it faster and one way is to get | tests greener before. | > | > Stef | > | > | >> Hi, | >> | >> But if it is done, why don't you just release the official one? | >> | >> Cheers, | >> Doru | >> | >> | >> On 25 Mar 2010, at 09:25, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: | >> | >>> +1 | >>> | >>> 1.1 is waiting for you guys and it is sexy and requires people to | use it :) | >>> | >>> On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: | >>> | >>>> | >>>> On Mar 25, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Geert Claes wrote: | >>>> | >>>>> | >>>>> | >>>>> Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: | >>>>>> | >>>>>> Sorry. Want I wanted to ask is...for next Pharo releases, I do | the same | >>>>>> but | >>>>>> making clear O2 is not by default ? or I just don't say | anything about O2 | >>>>>> in the release ? | >>>>>> | >>>>> | >>>>> While choice is a good thing it does make things more | complicated and the | >>>>> PBE book will need to just choose one I guess. It should be | easier to swap | >>>>> betweem OB or O2 though, maybe not necessarily both in the same | image at the | >>>>> same time but easy to load/unload. | >>>>> | >>>>> Have they really moved that far apart that the initial idea of | >>>>> OB-Enhancements is not possible? | >>>>> | >>>> | >>>> 1.0 is *DONE* *DONE* *DONE*. We should not discuss changing now | everthing again. | >>>> We can do that for 1.1 | >>>> | >>>> 1.0 does not have O2. | >>>> | >>>> So for the book, there will be a special image with O2 loaded. | >>>> | >>>> Marcus | >>>> | >>>> | >>>> -- | >>>> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de | >>>> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. | >>>> | >>>> | >>>> _______________________________________________ | >>>> Pharo-project mailing list | >>>> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | >>>> | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project | >>> | >>> | >>> _______________________________________________ | >>> Pharo-project mailing list | >>> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | >>> | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project | >> | >> -- | >> www.tudorgirba.com | >> | >> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." | >> | >> | >> _______________________________________________ | >> Pharo-project mailing list | >> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | >> | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Pharo-project mailing list | > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project | | | _______________________________________________ | Pharo-project mailing list | Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
thanks for the info, Dale Adrian On Mar 25, 2010, at 18:10 , Dale Henrichs wrote:
Adrian,
1.0-beta.25 has been released. So it is now _stable_ . No new issues have appeared, yet, but if any do appear I'll do a dot release.
Dale ----- "Adrian Lienhard" <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
| Because there are a few things left that still need to be done for the | release: | - make all tests in Pharo 1.0 pass | - write a clean and complete change log (I did a pass this morning) | [1] | - use different Metacello version? | - create a one-click image | | Cheers, | Adrian | | [1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ActionsInPharoOneDotOne | | On Mar 25, 2010, at 10:20 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote: | | > good question. | > I'm doing 1.1 and 1.0 is not in my radar. | > We should learn for 1.1 to make it faster and one way is to get | tests greener before. | > | > Stef | > | > | >> Hi, | >> | >> But if it is done, why don't you just release the official one? | >> | >> Cheers, | >> Doru | >> | >> | >> On 25 Mar 2010, at 09:25, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: | >> | >>> +1 | >>> | >>> 1.1 is waiting for you guys and it is sexy and requires people to | use it :) | >>> | >>> On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: | >>> | >>>> | >>>> On Mar 25, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Geert Claes wrote: | >>>> | >>>>> | >>>>> | >>>>> Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: | >>>>>> | >>>>>> Sorry. Want I wanted to ask is...for next Pharo releases, I do | the same | >>>>>> but | >>>>>> making clear O2 is not by default ? or I just don't say | anything about O2 | >>>>>> in the release ? | >>>>>> | >>>>> | >>>>> While choice is a good thing it does make things more | complicated and the | >>>>> PBE book will need to just choose one I guess. It should be | easier to swap | >>>>> betweem OB or O2 though, maybe not necessarily both in the same | image at the | >>>>> same time but easy to load/unload. | >>>>> | >>>>> Have they really moved that far apart that the initial idea of | >>>>> OB-Enhancements is not possible? | >>>>> | >>>> | >>>> 1.0 is *DONE* *DONE* *DONE*. We should not discuss changing now | everthing again. | >>>> We can do that for 1.1 | >>>> | >>>> 1.0 does not have O2. | >>>> | >>>> So for the book, there will be a special image with O2 loaded. | >>>> | >>>> Marcus | >>>> | >>>> | >>>> -- | >>>> Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de | >>>> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. | >>>> | >>>> | >>>> _______________________________________________ | >>>> Pharo-project mailing list | >>>> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | >>>> | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project | >>> | >>> | >>> _______________________________________________ | >>> Pharo-project mailing list | >>> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | >>> | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project | >> | >> -- | >> www.tudorgirba.com | >> | >> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." | >> | >> | >> _______________________________________________ | >> Pharo-project mailing list | >> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | >> | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Pharo-project mailing list | > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project | | | _______________________________________________ | Pharo-project mailing list | Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Have they really moved that far apart that the initial idea of OB-Enhancements is not possible?
OB-Enhancements patches and changes the OB meta-model and the morphic view in ways that break other browsers and unit tests that have not been built with OB-Enahncements in mind. It is possible to load either of the two browsers, and even both, in any recent Pharo image. I am using OB in Pharo 1.0 and 1.1. OB passes all tests in both environments., including eCompletion, Shout and the Refactoring Engine. http://hudson.lukas-renggli.ch/job/Development/lastCompletedBuild/testReport... Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
On 24 mars 2010, at 15:03, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
I do not have a definite answer. I personally prefer O2 instead of OB. OB is more stable though, which is a big advantage. Maybe a pool will help the community to say its word on it? Whether it wants to see O2 included or not in Pharo 1.0. Like this, you will not have to make an arbitrary decision. just an idea.
I recently came back to O2 and it's a huge relief in usability. However as Alex puts it, OB is more stable (for example in O2, I just noticed that I dont have anymore the completion in the mercury bar). In favor of pushing 1.0 release, I am for keeping OB because it is stable. However, I remember that it also impacts the book pharo by example, which has to use only one browser.
Cheers, Alexandre
On 24 Mar 2010, at 08:49, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Adrian Lienhard <adi@netstyle.ch> wrote: Hi Mariano,
I wonder why you mentioned O2 issues below because O2 is not in Pharo anymore, isn't it?
Sorry Adrian. I forgot about this email. I answer to the mail as it has an excellent question and my bad :)
I put the O2 issues because:
- I think it is a "official package that works on Pharo" even if we don't know what a official package is. - I have to create a version of the metacello configuration for O2 and I wanted to put the issues in the "description" of the release - The O2 issues were submitted in Pharo issue tracking, thus, I wanted to put them as closed and put "integrated in PharoXXX" - I changed the welcome workspace to load this new version of O2
However, it doesn't mean that O2 is now included in Dev images. Now you made me realize that this can be confusing. So, what should I do ? I am all ears :)
Cheers, Adrian
On Mar 20, 2010, at 20:40 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
Hi folks. We are proud to announce the (hopefully) last RC3 for Pharo 1.0.
This image is based in PharoCore-1.0-10515rc3. The image also contain lot of fixes and improvements of external packages:
These, are the fixed issues of the external tools:
OB: Issues 1891, 1748, 1670, 1667, 1705, 1667
O2: issues 1887, 1312, 1429, 1886, 2073
New Inspector: issues 1783, 1499
Refactoring Browser: issue 2108
The link is: https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/26680/Pharo-1.0-10515-rc3dev10.03.1...
Cheers
Mariano _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Simon
participants (10)
-
Adrian Lienhard -
Alexandre Bergel -
Dale Henrichs -
Geert Claes -
Lukas Renggli -
Marcus Denker -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Simon Denier -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba