Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo is exploding
On May 16, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Pavel Krivanek wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
It depends. Pharo 2.0 is UNSTABLE. It says it everywhere. If you want to do seriuous development you won't beusing Pharo 2.0, will you? ;)
I talked about that few days ago with Germán. The problem is not in using of unstable version. The problem is that it is very easy to stop to be in touch with Pharo now and within one year when the current unstable version will become stable the developers will face to very different system. That is one of the reason why Germán choose Cuis for his current projects. Developers want simple predictable system.
Absolutely wonderful. So what people wants just the same. Ok but this is not Pharo. And and and again again again and again who is concerned by RPackage vs PackageInfo, systemNotifier vs. announcement, better monticello, better canvas, better Zincâ¦. I find that a totally false argument.
I will quote Germán (I hope he will not mind): "lot and lot of things... Lot of new things each day.
Part of that is that I started the project "tweet something about Pharo every day". some 15 months? ago... my idea was that we need to make public what happens because most people's perception was : Smalltak is dead. If people want I can stop.
Not time to stabilize nothing.
Pharo 1.4 is frozen. We just fix bugs. The same with 1.3. Or even 1.2...
Is needed such acceleration? ... My point is, I'm trying to move a business with Smalltalk and the acceleration of Pharo is well know by me (from other companies) and sooner or later, impact in my job and I'm a very LITTLE software house can't migrate my products all the time."
You should *not* migrate. That's the idea. Just as one uses a (in the future unchanging Cuis, I am sorry to hear that), you can use an unchaning Pharo 1.4, or 1.3. Only when your project needs it, (because you actively with manpower develop it for a longer time), you can move to a new version.
We simply have to accept that some developers can have this feelings and try to find a way how to limit it. I think that some official Pharo blog (maybe written by Esteban) would be very helpful. Some kind of not very extensive technical information source that will help people to stay in touch with Pharo progress. That will explain what is being changed in Pharo and why. I think that developers than will see the changes like positive not as alien ones.
What I think is problematic: Peopler are against Change. But when somone nevertheless does it, build a great system, the same people that did not allow us to move will gladly abandon the old system for the new system. Cuis is a good example. According to the Philosophy of German, it should not exist. Maybe we should partition the *mailinglist* by stable and unstable? This way people using the stable don't see the noise and can focus... Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>wrote:
On May 16, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Pavel Krivanek wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
It depends. Pharo 2.0 is UNSTABLE. It says it everywhere. If you want to do seriuous development you won't beusing Pharo 2.0, will you? ;)
I talked about that few days ago with Germán. The problem is not in using of unstable version. The problem is that it is very easy to stop to be in touch with Pharo now and within one year when the current unstable version will become stable the developers will face to very different system. That is one of the reason why Germán choose Cuis for his current projects. Developers want simple predictable system.
Absolutely wonderful. So what people wants just the same. Ok but this is not Pharo. And and and again again again and again who is concerned by RPackage vs PackageInfo, systemNotifier vs. announcement, better monticello, better canvas, better Zincâ¦. I find that a totally false argument.
I will quote Germán (I hope he will not mind): "lot and lot of things... Lot of new things each day.
Part of that is that I started the project "tweet something about Pharo every day". some 15 months? ago... my idea was that we need to make public what happens because most people's perception was : Smalltak is dead.
If people want I can stop.
Not time to stabilize nothing.
Pharo 1.4 is frozen. We just fix bugs. The same with 1.3. Or even 1.2...
Is needed such acceleration? ... My point is, I'm trying to move a business with Smalltalk and the acceleration of Pharo is well know by me (from other companies) and sooner or later, impact in my job and I'm a very LITTLE software house can't migrate my products all the time."
You should *not* migrate. That's the idea. Just as one uses a (in the future unchanging Cuis, I am sorry to hear that), you can use an unchaning Pharo 1.4, or 1.3. Only when your project needs it, (because you actively with manpower develop it for a longer time), you can move to a new version.
We simply have to accept that some developers can have this feelings and try to find a way how to limit it. I think that some official Pharo blog (maybe written by Esteban) would be very helpful. Some kind of not very extensive technical information source that will help people to stay in touch with Pharo progress. That will explain what is being changed in Pharo and why. I think that developers than will see the changes like positive not as alien ones.
What I think is problematic: Peopler are against Change. But when somone nevertheless does it, build a great system, the same people that did not allow us to move will gladly abandon the old system for the new system. Cuis is a good example. According to the Philosophy of German, it should not exist.
Maybe we should partition the *mailinglist* by stable and unstable? This way people using the stable don't see the noise and can focus...
Well, in part I thought that was the difference between -users and -project :). The problem is that we focus all the traffic in this mailing list which should be the bleedingEdge list. Me included sometimes use this mailing list to ask stuff that should go to StackOverflow or the -users list. So probably we should be more... ordered? and try to think where to post the info :). Guille
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
Part of that is that I started the project "tweet something about Pharo every day". some 15 months? ago... my idea was that we need to make public what happens because most people's perception was : Smalltak is dead.
If people want I can stop.
YES PLEASE STOP THIS WAS THE MOST RIDICULOUS EVER IDEA. IMAGINE people could think that we are not dead...
Not time to stabilize nothing.
Pharo 1.4 is frozen. We just fix bugs. The same with 1.3. Or even 1.2...
Is needed such acceleration? ... My point is, I'm trying to move a business with Smalltalk and the acceleration of Pharo is well know by me (from other companies) and sooner or later, impact in my job and I'm a very LITTLE software house can't migrate my products all the time."
You should *not* migrate. That's the idea. Just as one uses a (in the future unchanging Cuis, I am sorry to hear that), you can use an unchaning Pharo 1.4, or 1.3. Only when your project needs it, (because you actively with manpower develop it for a longer time), you can move to a new version.
We simply have to accept that some developers can have this feelings and try to find a way how to limit it. I think that some official Pharo blog (maybe written by Esteban) would be very helpful. Some kind of not very extensive technical information source that will help people to stay in touch with Pharo progress. That will explain what is being changed in Pharo and why. I think that developers than will see the changes like positive not as alien ones.
What I think is problematic: Peopler are against Change. But when somone nevertheless does it, build a great system, the same people that did not allow us to move will gladly abandon the old system for the new system. Cuis is a good example. According to the Philosophy of German, it should not exist.
Maybe we should partition the *mailinglist* by stable and unstable? This way people using the stable don't see the noise and can focusâ¦
Yes let us create a core-dev private mailing-list.
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
i agree with francois, you already have two mailing lists. one for developers and one for users On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Francois Stephany < tulipe.moutarde@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes let us create a core-dev private mailing-list.
Please don't.
Just force people to use pharo-users when the question does not fit the criteria for pharo-project.
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 08:31 -0700, Francois Stephany wrote:
Yes let us create a core-dev private mailing-list.
Please don't.
Just force people to use pharo-users when the question does not fit the criteria for pharo-project.
Agreed. I like to see what's going on, even if I can't currently participate. Steve
On 17 May 2012 02:08, Stephen Taylor <stephen.taylor@bom.gov.au> wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 08:31 -0700, Francois Stephany wrote:
Yes let us create a core-dev private mailing-list.
Please don't.
Just force people to use pharo-users when the question does not fit the criteria for pharo-project.
Agreed. I like to see what's going on, even if I can't currently participate.
I don't think that forcing people to do anything is good idea. You cannot force anyone in our community to do anything. Because they can choose what is best for them by themselves. Force is bad word. All you can do is, for example, say: if you need my help or ask a question or contact me, please use this, this and this. And if people don't seek your help, nor advice, anything like 'you should use that' will be ignored.
- Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Steve
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
On 17 May 2012 01:08, Stephen Taylor <stephen.taylor@bom.gov.au> wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 08:31 -0700, Francois Stephany wrote:
Yes let us create a core-dev private mailing-list.
When that one gets too busy from all the exploding, you can make a core-core-dev private mailing list! frank
Please don't.
Just force people to use pharo-users when the question does not fit the criteria for pharo-project.
Agreed. I like to see what's going on, even if I can't currently participate.
        Steve
participants (8)
-
Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras -
Francois Stephany -
Frank Shearar -
Guillermo Polito -
Igor Stasenko -
Marcus Denker -
Stephen Taylor -
Stéphane Ducasse