[Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean
Hi all, With the latest update, #10343, we have reached an important step towards Pharo 1.0. There is no method left in Pharo-core that is not license clean [1]. Methods from people that did not sign the agreement or did not release their code under SqueakL were removed or rewritten. There is a wiki page that describes how I did the audit [2]. Thanks to Gabriel for his help. Cheers, Adrian [1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing [2] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort ___________________ http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/
Congratulations, this is excellent news! On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Adrian Lienhard<adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
Hi all,
With the latest update, #10343, we have reached an important step towards Pharo 1.0. There is no method left in Pharo-core that is not license clean [1]. Methods from people that did not sign the agreement or did not release their code under SqueakL were removed or rewritten. There is a wiki page that describes how I did the audit [2].
Thanks to Gabriel for his help.
Cheers, Adrian
[1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing [2] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort ___________________ http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Adrian Lienhard<adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
With the latest update, #10343, we have reached an important step towards Pharo 1.0. There is no method left in Pharo-core that is not license clean [1]. Methods from people that did not sign the agreement or did not release their code under SqueakL were removed or rewritten. There is a wiki page that describes how I did the audit [2].
Very very cool. Thank you all -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
Indeed, excellent ! Good job! Alexandre On 23 Jun 2009, at 09:53, Damien Cassou wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Adrian Lienhard<adi@netstyle.ch> wrote:
With the latest update, #10343, we have reached an important step towards Pharo 1.0. There is no method left in Pharo-core that is not license clean [1]. Methods from people that did not sign the agreement or did not release their code under SqueakL were removed or rewritten. There is a wiki page that describes how I did the audit [2].
Very very cool. Thank you all
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
_______________________________________________ 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 ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Congratulations to all who worked on that massive amount of boring but important work. I see that as a signal that Pharo community can indeed achieve something. I mean, if you are able to organize and complete such a boring work in these times, when everyone wants to do only the exiting things, you have an organization which is able to deliver! Best regards Janko Adrian Lienhard pravi:
With the latest update, #10343, we have reached an important step towards Pharo 1.0. There is no method left in Pharo-core that is not license clean [1]. Methods from people that did not sign the agreement or did not release their code under SqueakL were removed or rewritten. There is a wiki page that describes how I did the audit [2].
Thanks to Gabriel for his help.
Cheers, Adrian
[1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing [2] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort ___________________ http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/
-- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
removing etoy cleaning morphic removing MVC is also boring and we nearly finished it. Stef On Jun 23, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Janko Mivšek wrote:
Congratulations to all who worked on that massive amount of boring but important work.
I see that as a signal that Pharo community can indeed achieve something. I mean, if you are able to organize and complete such a boring work in these times, when everyone wants to do only the exiting things, you have an organization which is able to deliver!
Best regards Janko
Adrian Lienhard pravi:
With the latest update, #10343, we have reached an important step towards Pharo 1.0. There is no method left in Pharo-core that is not license clean [1]. Methods from people that did not sign the agreement or did not release their code under SqueakL were removed or rewritten. There is a wiki page that describes how I did the audit [2].
Thanks to Gabriel for his help.
Cheers, Adrian
[1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing [2] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort ___________________ http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/
-- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:08:57AM +0200, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
Hi all,
With the latest update, #10343, we have reached an important step towards Pharo 1.0. There is no method left in Pharo-core that is not license clean [1]. Methods from people that did not sign the agreement or did not release their code under SqueakL were removed or rewritten. There is a wiki page that describes how I did the audit [2].
Thanks to Gabriel for his help.
Awesome job guys. The volume of improvements Pharo has over Squeak really makes me wonder if the latter has any real relevance anymore.
[1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing [2] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort
It looks like you did the relicense perfectly. I'm glad the image I put together was able to help you. I'm sorry I didn't help more. -- Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/
Matthew
Awesome job guys.
Thanks.
The volume of improvements Pharo has over Squeak really makes me wonder if the latter has any real relevance anymore.
I do not know and in itself this is not our goal. We do not do pharo against Squeak. We do pharo to be able to dream about Smalltalk. We are committed (even more than for 3.9 which I think was a success even if there are some points I would reconsider :)) Now people are welcome to pharo. But Pharo will not be squeak. We want to create a culture where better, faster, more tested, more documented, new, well-designed, not compatible changes are possible and wished. :) I'm still profoundly sad to remove etoy or complex related morphic stuff. May be some people will reimplement some solutions that were already in squeak, but this is the way to go. Cleaning and making the system lean so that we and other can invent their future.
[1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing [2] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort
It looks like you did the relicense perfectly. I'm glad the image I put together was able to help you. I'm sorry I didn't help more.
it was great that you provided the resources. It helped a lot. I could play with the idea and this really lowered the barrier. So be sure that you participated. :) Stef PS: I should check some pending items of what you did (MC1.5.....) just life is too short. PSPS: I hope your master is going well.
Hi all! Matthew Fulmer wrote:
Awesome job guys. The volume of improvements Pharo has over Squeak really makes me wonder if the latter has any real relevance anymore.
Yes, it is quite an interesting situation IMHO, and one that most of us could foresee too I think. NOTE: Read the following with a nice bucket of love, ok? I don't intend to make anyone upset. :) And sorry for the long post. On one hand I really appreciate the Pharo project - lots of good people doing lots of good progress etc. It seems to be doing simply great. On the other hand the "negative" effect I can see is the "drain" it has caused (I think) from squeak.org/squeak-dev. In other words, squeak.org has lost a lot of momentum, and of course not only due to the birth of Pharo I should add. And in many ways Pharo may also be the "rescue" to squeak.org. God knows we have been trying to find "our way" lately and with... less impressive results. :) So... how will the future evolve? Does the Squeak community (in the large sense) have anything to gain from keeping both the squeak.org and the pharo fork "alive"? I presume we have at least the following three scenarios: 1. Continue as now and take no specific action. This will probably lead to Squeak.org going weaker and Pharo stronger by the day. Developers will want to be where the "action" is. Soon squeak.org turns irrelevant and dies a slow death. 2. Take some decisive action and "merge" the two in some *smart* way beneficial to both. Impossible? I hope not. 3. Just kill off squeak.org. A mercy kill :). Then people could move over to Pharo without having to think about it - there is no other "Squeak". Eh, well, my analysis is probably full of silly holes here. Looking at the above, 1 and 3 feels less nice. So how could a "merge" look that would be attractive to *both* camps? I call the theoretical merged project Phreak below (but I am not proposing name changes etc, but I need a name to use in the text). Pharo characteristics: - A small "benevolent dictator" board. Lots of action, less talk. - Has a very clear stated "direction". - Has a website using CMSBox. - Uses Google code for issue tracker and wiki. - Has Mailman mailinglists and downloads at gforge.inria.fr (I think) Squeak.org org characteristics: - Has an elected SOB, an election process and a Team model. The jury is still out I think, we seem to have lots of trouble "getting shit done". - Has very little stated "direction" at the moment. - Has a website using Swazoo. - Uses Mantis, Swiki, file archive and Mailman on a community paid Hetzner server. Now... why would Squeak.org want to merge with Pharo? Pros: Get momentum back. 1 + 1 = 2. A revitalization. Very important! Cons: The SOB & Team model would probably have to be dropped. The work made since Pharo forked may or may not be a "lost cause", that depends on if Phreak is interested in utilizing that work. Other cons? ...and Pharo? Pros: An influx of developers. A much stronger position as Phreak would be Squeak + Pharo. No "compatibility" to worry about, Squeak is out of the picture. Cons: Some people in Pharo may perceive such a merge as dangerous since they might be afraid that certain aspects of Squeak.org (that Pharo was created in order to escape from) is coming back "knocking on the door". I personally don't think there is such a danger if Phreak simply adopts the simple organisation of Pharo (with board and all) BUT... since it would make the Pharo community much *larger* the effects of that growth need to be taken into account. But Pharo should not fear growth, because that would be an odd position. How could a merge be done practically? I really don't know :). And I must stop typing now, this post is waaaaay to long anyway and I have probably stepped on too many toes already. regards, Göran
2009/6/28 Göran Krampe <goran@krampe.se>:
Hi all!
Matthew Fulmer wrote:
Awesome job guys. The volume of improvements Pharo has over Squeak really makes me wonder if the latter has any real relevance anymore.
Yes, it is quite an interesting situation IMHO, and one that most of us could foresee too I think.
NOTE: Read the following with a nice bucket of love, ok? I don't intend to make anyone upset. :) And sorry for the long post.
On one hand I really appreciate the Pharo project - lots of good people doing lots of good progress etc. It seems to be doing simply great.
On the other hand the "negative" effect I can see is the "drain" it has caused (I think) from squeak.org/squeak-dev. In other words, squeak.org has lost a lot of momentum, and of course not only due to the birth of Pharo I should add. And in many ways Pharo may also be the "rescue" to squeak.org. God knows we have been trying to find "our way" lately and with... less impressive results. :)
So... how will the future evolve? Does the Squeak community (in the large sense) have anything to gain from keeping both the squeak.org and the pharo fork "alive"?
I presume we have at least the following three scenarios:
1. Continue as now and take no specific action. This will probably lead to Squeak.org going weaker and Pharo stronger by the day. Developers will want to be where the "action" is. Soon squeak.org turns irrelevant and dies a slow death.
2. Take some decisive action and "merge" the two in some *smart* way beneficial to both. Impossible? I hope not.
3. Just kill off squeak.org. A mercy kill :). Then people could move over to Pharo without having to think about it - there is no other "Squeak".
Eh, well, my analysis is probably full of silly holes here. Looking at the above, 1 and 3 feels less nice. So how could a "merge" look that would be attractive to *both* camps? I call the theoretical merged project Phreak below (but I am not proposing name changes etc, but I need a name to use in the text).
Pharo characteristics:
- A small "benevolent dictator" board. Lots of action, less talk. - Has a very clear stated "direction". - Has a website using CMSBox. - Uses Google code for issue tracker and wiki. - Has Mailman mailinglists and downloads at gforge.inria.fr (I think)
Squeak.org org characteristics:
- Has an elected SOB, an election process and a Team model. The jury is still out I think, we seem to have lots of trouble "getting shit done". - Has very little stated "direction" at the moment. - Has a website using Swazoo. - Uses Mantis, Swiki, file archive and Mailman on a community paid Hetzner server.
Now... why would Squeak.org want to merge with Pharo?
Pros: Get momentum back. 1 + 1 = 2. A revitalization. Very important!
Cons: The SOB & Team model would probably have to be dropped. The work made since Pharo forked may or may not be a "lost cause", that depends on if Phreak is interested in utilizing that work. Other cons?
...and Pharo?
Pros: An influx of developers. A much stronger position as Phreak would be Squeak + Pharo. No "compatibility" to worry about, Squeak is out of the picture.
Cons: Some people in Pharo may perceive such a merge as dangerous since they might be afraid that certain aspects of Squeak.org (that Pharo was created in order to escape from) is coming back "knocking on the door".
I personally don't think there is such a danger if Phreak simply adopts the simple organisation of Pharo (with board and all) BUT... since it would make the Pharo community much *larger* the effects of that growth need to be taken into account. But Pharo should not fear growth, because that would be an odd position.
How could a merge be done practically? I really don't know :). And I must stop typing now, this post is waaaaay to long anyway and I have probably stepped on too many toes already.
Hello Goran. You are definitely didn't stepped on any of my toes/toys. And i would certainly sacrifice my SOB membership (if this is a sacrifice), to see things moving & progressing as fast as they do in Pharo. As many others, i eagier to see the squeak/pharo/phreak shining - make it cool & modern software. The rest of things is barely bothering me. What i like in Pharo, that they make decisions on strictly technical basis - no politics. If code is good - it candidate to be included. If code stinks - its a candidate to be excluded. Simple concept :) For anyone, interested in my opinion: i would put a huge +1 for a merge on a Pharoer's conditions.
regards, Göran
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Igor I think that this is too early. Let us deliver something first and see. I want to see what we can really do. Can we create a community of doers? Can we create wealth and a cool community? Then some people can see how we can merge and if this makes sense Stef
2. Take some decisive action and "merge" the two in some *smart* way beneficial to both. Impossible? I hope not.
3. Just kill off squeak.org. A mercy kill :). Then people could move over to Pharo without having to think about it - there is no other "Squeak".
Eh, well, my analysis is probably full of silly holes here. Looking at the above, 1 and 3 feels less nice. So how could a "merge" look that would be attractive to *both* camps? I call the theoretical merged project Phreak below (but I am not proposing name changes etc, but I need a name to use in the text).
Pharo characteristics:
- A small "benevolent dictator" board. Lots of action, less talk. - Has a very clear stated "direction". - Has a website using CMSBox. - Uses Google code for issue tracker and wiki. - Has Mailman mailinglists and downloads at gforge.inria.fr (I think)
Squeak.org org characteristics:
- Has an elected SOB, an election process and a Team model. The jury is still out I think, we seem to have lots of trouble "getting shit done". - Has very little stated "direction" at the moment. - Has a website using Swazoo. - Uses Mantis, Swiki, file archive and Mailman on a community paid Hetzner server.
Now... why would Squeak.org want to merge with Pharo?
Pros: Get momentum back. 1 + 1 = 2. A revitalization. Very important!
Cons: The SOB & Team model would probably have to be dropped. The work made since Pharo forked may or may not be a "lost cause", that depends on if Phreak is interested in utilizing that work. Other cons?
...and Pharo?
Pros: An influx of developers. A much stronger position as Phreak would be Squeak + Pharo. No "compatibility" to worry about, Squeak is out of the picture.
Cons: Some people in Pharo may perceive such a merge as dangerous since they might be afraid that certain aspects of Squeak.org (that Pharo was created in order to escape from) is coming back "knocking on the door".
I personally don't think there is such a danger if Phreak simply adopts the simple organisation of Pharo (with board and all) BUT... since it would make the Pharo community much *larger* the effects of that growth need to be taken into account. But Pharo should not fear growth, because that would be an odd position.
How could a merge be done practically? I really don't know :). And I must stop typing now, this post is waaaaay to long anyway and I have probably stepped on too many toes already.
Hello Goran. You are definitely didn't stepped on any of my toes/toys. And i would certainly sacrifice my SOB membership (if this is a sacrifice), to see things moving & progressing as fast as they do in Pharo. As many others, i eagier to see the squeak/pharo/phreak shining - make it cool & modern software. The rest of things is barely bothering me.
What i like in Pharo, that they make decisions on strictly technical basis - no politics. If code is good - it candidate to be included. If code stinks - its a candidate to be excluded. Simple concept :)
For anyone, interested in my opinion: i would put a huge +1 for a merge on a Pharoer's conditions.
regards, Göran
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Göran, Pharo is not even at beta, and has some speed and (Stef's reaction) stability problems. Having read Stef's recent reply to me, I'm wondering whether some of the performance/response time problems are related to input starvation, or a false assumption of same. My vote would be to let Pharo mature under its current leadership and then worry about whether to merge the two projects. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Göran Krampe Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:45 PM To: pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr; The general-purpose Squeak developers list Subject: [Pharo-project] The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean) Hi all! Matthew Fulmer wrote:
Awesome job guys. The volume of improvements Pharo has over Squeak really makes me wonder if the latter has any real relevance anymore.
Yes, it is quite an interesting situation IMHO, and one that most of us could foresee too I think. NOTE: Read the following with a nice bucket of love, ok? I don't intend to make anyone upset. :) And sorry for the long post. On one hand I really appreciate the Pharo project - lots of good people doing lots of good progress etc. It seems to be doing simply great. On the other hand the "negative" effect I can see is the "drain" it has caused (I think) from squeak.org/squeak-dev. In other words, squeak.org has lost a lot of momentum, and of course not only due to the birth of Pharo I should add. And in many ways Pharo may also be the "rescue" to squeak.org. God knows we have been trying to find "our way" lately and with... less impressive results. :) So... how will the future evolve? Does the Squeak community (in the large sense) have anything to gain from keeping both the squeak.org and the pharo fork "alive"? I presume we have at least the following three scenarios: 1. Continue as now and take no specific action. This will probably lead to Squeak.org going weaker and Pharo stronger by the day. Developers will want to be where the "action" is. Soon squeak.org turns irrelevant and dies a slow death. 2. Take some decisive action and "merge" the two in some *smart* way beneficial to both. Impossible? I hope not. 3. Just kill off squeak.org. A mercy kill :). Then people could move over to Pharo without having to think about it - there is no other "Squeak". Eh, well, my analysis is probably full of silly holes here. Looking at the above, 1 and 3 feels less nice. So how could a "merge" look that would be attractive to *both* camps? I call the theoretical merged project Phreak below (but I am not proposing name changes etc, but I need a name to use in the text). Pharo characteristics: - A small "benevolent dictator" board. Lots of action, less talk. - Has a very clear stated "direction". - Has a website using CMSBox. - Uses Google code for issue tracker and wiki. - Has Mailman mailinglists and downloads at gforge.inria.fr (I think) Squeak.org org characteristics: - Has an elected SOB, an election process and a Team model. The jury is still out I think, we seem to have lots of trouble "getting shit done". - Has very little stated "direction" at the moment. - Has a website using Swazoo. - Uses Mantis, Swiki, file archive and Mailman on a community paid Hetzner server. Now... why would Squeak.org want to merge with Pharo? Pros: Get momentum back. 1 + 1 = 2. A revitalization. Very important! Cons: The SOB & Team model would probably have to be dropped. The work made since Pharo forked may or may not be a "lost cause", that depends on if Phreak is interested in utilizing that work. Other cons? ...and Pharo? Pros: An influx of developers. A much stronger position as Phreak would be Squeak + Pharo. No "compatibility" to worry about, Squeak is out of the picture. Cons: Some people in Pharo may perceive such a merge as dangerous since they might be afraid that certain aspects of Squeak.org (that Pharo was created in order to escape from) is coming back "knocking on the door". I personally don't think there is such a danger if Phreak simply adopts the simple organisation of Pharo (with board and all) BUT... since it would make the Pharo community much *larger* the effects of that growth need to be taken into account. But Pharo should not fear growth, because that would be an odd position. How could a merge be done practically? I really don't know :). And I must stop typing now, this post is waaaaay to long anyway and I have probably stepped on too many toes already. regards, Göran _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Hi! Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
Göran,
Pharo is not even at beta, and has some speed and (Stef's reaction) stability problems. Having read Stef's recent reply to me, I'm wondering whether some of the performance/response time problems are related to input starvation, or a false assumption of same.
My vote would be to let Pharo mature under its current leadership and then worry about whether to merge the two projects.
Bill
Sure, that is an aspect of it all of course. On the other hand - new fresh work is always done at the "frontier" so for me as a developer wondering where my time is best spent it is still a valid question I need to ask myself: Where do I put my effort? In latest Squeak.org or latest Pharo? I agree that as a *user* I might still deploy/develop in a good old and tried image - say 3.10.2 or whatever. Tonight I just spent time trying/testing my Blackfoot package in the Seaside Pharo image. (Works fine btw!) This is time I am spending in order to make my work (in this case Blackfoot) available to Pharo people. And thus the question about where these two projects are going is highly relevant to me. regards, Göran
Sure, that is an aspect of it all of course. On the other hand - new fresh work is always done at the "frontier" so for me as a developer wondering where my time is best spent it is still a valid question I need to ask myself:
Where do I put my effort? In latest Squeak.org or latest Pharo?
I have the answer :) But if you want to find your answer: take your preconditions take pharo goals do the same with squeak and check.
I agree that as a *user* I might still deploy/develop in a good old and tried image - say 3.10.2 or whatever.
No not whatever. The ones were people put responsibility to produce.
Tonight I just spent time trying/testing my Blackfoot package in the Seaside Pharo image. (Works fine btw!) This is time I am spending in order to make my work (in this case Blackfoot) available to Pharo people. And thus the question about where these two projects are going is highly relevant to me.
Pharo path is stated on the wiki: - clean - lean - better for the better - changing if necessary We want to make sure that we get agile again to invent new STUFF any new stuff. So if you come with URI working and tests, with network improvements, cruft removal..... we will integrate (modulo the license). Stef
regards, Göran
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Yes, it is quite an interesting situation IMHO, and one that most of us could foresee too I think.
NOTE: Read the following with a nice bucket of love, ok?
sure :)
I don't intend to make anyone upset. :) And sorry for the long post.
On one hand I really appreciate the Pharo project - lots of good people doing lots of good progress etc. It seems to be doing simply great.
On the other hand the "negative" effect I can see is the "drain" it has caused (I think) from squeak.org/squeak-dev. In other words, squeak.org has lost a lot of momentum, and of course not only due to the birth of Pharo I should add. And in many ways Pharo may also be the "rescue" to squeak.org. God knows we have been trying to find "our way" lately and with... less impressive results. :)
So... how will the future evolve? Does the Squeak community (in the large sense) have anything to gain from keeping both the squeak.org and the pharo fork "alive"?
I think that squeak has a momentum and should naturally continue to exist.
I presume we have at least the following three scenarios:
1. Continue as now and take no specific action. This will probably lead to Squeak.org going weaker and Pharo stronger by the day. Developers will want to be where the "action" is. Soon squeak.org turns irrelevant and dies a slow death.
Not necessarily. It depends what squeakers want to achieve. It is not clear to me.
2. Take some decisive action and "merge" the two in some *smart* way beneficial to both. Impossible? I hope not.
I do not know. We left for specific reasons and I do not see how they could be solved. Then the magic: "develop for both" does not work in general because software is complex. too complex.
3. Just kill off squeak.org. A mercy kill :). Then people could move over to Pharo without having to think about it - there is no other "Squeak".
I do not think that this is wise. Now people should think why and what they are doing. So far pharo is not taking the multimedia space: so if squeakers want to continue or even better build (or rebuild) it: Imagine some great libraries and scenario that focus on delivering high-quality multimedia experiences. Then this would be cool. May be squeak would run on top of pharo :)))))
Eh, well, my analysis is probably full of silly holes here. Looking at the above, 1 and 3 feels less nice. So how could a "merge" look that would be attractive to *both* camps?
which camps? :)
I call the theoretical merged project Phreak below (but I am not proposing name changes etc, but I need a name to use in the text).
Pharo characteristics:
- A small "benevolent dictator" board. Lots of action, less talk. - Has a very clear stated "direction". - Has a website using CMSBox. - Uses Google code for issue tracker and wiki. - Has Mailman mailinglists and downloads at gforge.inria.fr (I think)
Squeak.org org characteristics:
- Has an elected SOB, an election process and a Team model. The jury is still out I think, we seem to have lots of trouble "getting shit done". - Has very little stated "direction" at the moment. - Has a website using Swazoo. - Uses Mantis, Swiki, file archive and Mailman on a community paid Hetzner server.
Now... why would Squeak.org want to merge with Pharo?
Pros: Get momentum back. 1 + 1 = 2. A revitalization. Very important!
Cons: The SOB & Team model would probably have to be dropped. The work made since Pharo forked may or may not be a "lost cause", that depends on if Phreak is interested in utilizing that work. Other cons?
...and Pharo?
Pros: An influx of developers. A much stronger position as Phreak would be Squeak + Pharo. No "compatibility" to worry about, Squeak is out of the picture.
Cons: Some people in Pharo may perceive such a merge as dangerous since they might be afraid that certain aspects of Squeak.org (that Pharo was created in order to escape from) is coming back "knocking on the door".
I'm not that convinced. Let us see that if Squeak would be really active and share common interest for cleaning and delivering good abstractions for multimedia and other you could see Squeak/phreak based on pharo and this could be cool. Now so far I see not that much progress.
I personally don't think there is such a danger if Phreak simply adopts the simple organisation of Pharo (with board and all) BUT... since it would make the Pharo community much *larger* the effects of that growth need to be taken into account. But Pharo should not fear growth, because that would be an odd position.
How could a merge be done practically? I really don't know :).
me neither.
And I must stop typing now, this post is waaaaay to long anyway and I have probably stepped on too many toes already.
Not really.
regards, Göran
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
participants (10)
-
Adrian Lienhard -
Alexandre Bergel -
Damien Cassou -
Göran Krampe -
Igor Stasenko -
Janko Mivšek -
Lukas Renggli -
Matthew Fulmer -
Schwab,Wilhelm K -
Stéphane Ducasse