Re: [Pharo-project] Trip to Pharo land
Hi! CCing Pharo list, this was regarding: http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/eblankett-dev.rdoc On 05/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
Hello Göran,
Is there a special reason you tried Pharo 1.0? Your improvements are of
Nope, just (wrongly I agree) thought it was fairly up to date since it was just released. But you are right, depending on release process that does indeed not necessarily correlate.
course in 1.1. Feature freeze for 1.0 was long ago. If you're willing to use the bleeding edge in squeak, why not do it in pharo too?
Again, not a conscious choice. I can use bleeding edge in Pharo too, is there an easy place to start? Earlier I used some core + Renggli scripts to get a decent image.
Which peek bugfix is in Squeak? The 2010-1-13 solution is wrong. See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1813.
I will check it out, gotta work on the house now :)
Groetjes, Stephan Eggermont
Thanks for the feedback, Göran
I don't remember, but i think Date class>>readFrom:pattern: was included in pharo 1.1 Oh. and installing installer in pharo is: ScriptLoader new installingInstaller. Sometimes, you just need to file-in changesets, like: installPrerequisites: installer (CompiledMethodTrailer trailerKinds includes: #NativeCodeTrailer) ifFalse: [ installer installUrl: 'http://nativeboost.googlecode.com/files/000-NativeCodeTrailers.cs' ]. "Make sure an image having this crucial fix " (Object>>#perform:withArguments: ) frameSize > CompiledMethod smallFrameSize ifFalse: [ installer installUrl: 'http://nativeboost.googlecode.com/files/001-perform-framesize.cs'. ]. and i don't know of any other tool, than Installer, which makes it easy. I think you can do similar trick with #readFrom:pattern: - put it into own changeset and load it, if system doesn't having it. 2010/5/30 Göran Krampe <goran@krampe.se>:
Hi!
CCing Pharo list, this was regarding:
http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/eblankett-dev.rdoc
On 05/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
Hello Göran,
Is there a special reason you tried Pharo 1.0? Your improvements are of
Nope, just (wrongly I agree) thought it was fairly up to date since it was just released. But you are right, depending on release process that does indeed not necessarily correlate.
course in 1.1. Feature freeze for 1.0 was long ago. If you're willing to use the bleeding edge in squeak, why not do it in pharo too?
Again, not a conscious choice. I can use bleeding edge in Pharo too, is there an easy place to start? Earlier I used some core + Renggli scripts to get a decent image.
Which peek bugfix is in Squeak? The 2010-1-13 solution is wrong. See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1813.
I will check it out, gotta work on the house now :)
Groetjes, Stephan Eggermont
Thanks for the feedback, 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.
Hi goran and stephan It is difficult to follow if we should take action. Apparently we do not have all the story. so if we should something please tell us. Now 1.1 got so much improvements may be it worth to have a look at it. You can find a direct link on 1.1 from http://www.pharo-project.org/home Stef
Hi!
CCing Pharo list, this was regarding:
http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/eblankett-dev.rdoc
On 05/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
Hello Göran,
Is there a special reason you tried Pharo 1.0? Your improvements are of
Nope, just (wrongly I agree) thought it was fairly up to date since it was just released. But you are right, depending on release process that does indeed not necessarily correlate.
course in 1.1. Feature freeze for 1.0 was long ago. If you're willing to use the bleeding edge in squeak, why not do it in pharo too?
Again, not a conscious choice. I can use bleeding edge in Pharo too, is there an easy place to start? Earlier I used some core + Renggli scripts to get a decent image.
Which peek bugfix is in Squeak? The 2010-1-13 solution is wrong. See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1813.
I will check it out, gotta work on the house now :)
Groetjes, Stephan Eggermont
Thanks for the feedback, Göran
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
I'd guess the important thing is to explain on the Pharo web site that bug fixes are in the 1.1 and are not (always) retrofitted to 1.0 Stephan
I'd guess the important thing is to explain on the Pharo web site that bug fixes are in the 1.1 and are not (always) retrofitted to 1.0
only showstoppers = severe bugs = that can put the system on his knees. But probably we should stay that: "In the current set of ressources only showstoppers or extremely severe bugs are retrofitted in old versions" Stef
Stephan
If there is a need for backporting important fixes to 1.0 I can do that during the sprint next Saturday. But I would need to know *which* fixes are the critical ones. Adrian On May 30, 2010, at 18:10 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I'd guess the important thing is to explain on the Pharo web site that bug fixes are in the 1.1 and are not (always) retrofitted to 1.0
only showstoppers = severe bugs = that can put the system on his knees. But probably we should stay that:
"In the current set of ressources only showstoppers or extremely severe bugs are retrofitted in old versions"
Stef
Stephan
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
I think that Goran's case was an indication how sometimes hard to cope up with latest & finest things. So, Goran had issues with trunk, as well as with Pharo.. And wasted a time by using old/obsolete, wrong things, because of lack of information. Take into account that all of it happen to not someone just starting, but with one, who being around for a while! This gives you idea how hard it might be for newcomers. Scarce resources, no docs, explanations, installation instructions, roadmaps etc etc.. So, this is what we should to take care of. Including of bug fixes, of course. :) -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Yes but in that case try 1.0 try 1.1 alpha like that you simply know if you software is running. Even in VW or Java you have to do that. because would you really spend time reading 20 pages of bug fixes? Stef On May 30, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
I think that Goran's case was an indication how sometimes hard to cope up with latest & finest things. So, Goran had issues with trunk, as well as with Pharo.. And wasted a time by using old/obsolete, wrong things, because of lack of information.
Take into account that all of it happen to not someone just starting, but with one, who being around for a while! This gives you idea how hard it might be for newcomers. Scarce resources, no docs, explanations, installation instructions, roadmaps etc etc..
So, this is what we should to take care of. Including of bug fixes, of course. :)
-- 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
Hi! So much discussion about that little post... :) On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Yes but in that case try 1.0 try 1.1 alpha
Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :) Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing". And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I? I am not sure the website can/should be different - but fact remains that I got "fooled" by the fact that 1.0 was just released and I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :) I will see if I can do an update trial on 1.1 and see how that goes. regards, Göran
Hi!
So much discussion about that little post... :)
On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Yes but in that case try 1.0 try 1.1 alpha
Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :)
I do not know what you are implying. But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver and if all these stuff make sense. Conclusion - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple. - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now.
Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing".
And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I?
I am not sure the website can/should be different - but fact remains that I got "fooled" by the fact that 1.0 was just released and I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :)
Yes it really is. Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better. Stef
On 30.05.2010 23:17, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> Hi! >> >> So much discussion about that little post... :) >> >> On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >>> Yes but in that case >>> try 1.0 >>> try 1.1 alpha >> Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :) > I do not know what you are implying. But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo > so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver > and if all these stuff make sense. > Conclusion > - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes > - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple. > - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now. > >> Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing". >> >> And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I? >> >> I am not sure the website can/should be different - but fact remains that I got "fooled" by the fact that 1.0 was just released and I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :) > Yes it really is. > Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better. Sort of like 4.0 and 4.1, although the gap is a bit smaller :) Cheers, Henry
Hi! On 05/30/2010 11:17 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi!
So much discussion about that little post... :)
On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Yes but in that case try 1.0 try 1.1 alpha
Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :)
I do not know what you are implying.
Eh, "top posting". See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style So it was not an implication of anything, I just joked a little. ...but I see in this post that you are interleaving instead :)
But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver and if all these stuff make sense. Conclusion - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple. - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now.
Yeah, I am all with you. Just wondering if... well, I chose 1.0 since it is clearly what the website "wants me to do" so to speak. And 1.1 is mentioned as "bleeding edge" etc. But if you think I will have a smoother ride in 1.1, then perhaps the site should somehow indicate that. But again, I really don't know if that is a good idea.
Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing".
And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I?
I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :)
Yes it really is. Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better.
Then perhaps you *should* write that on the website somehow. Like: "Even though 1.1 is still in alpha development we feel it is even in its current state a much better environment than 1.0 for development. But it is of course not yet a stable baseline." Also, if you only backport showstoppers (and not "bugs") then 1.0 is as of today not even preferrable from a stability standpoint, or? regards, Göran PS. I am really trying to be constructive here, these problems are generic in nature and Squeak.org suffer from the exact same issues of course - devel vs stable etc. Just curious how Pharo should "talk to newcomers" about it.
got it well don't worry. Stef On May 31, 2010, at 12:02 AM, Göran Krampe wrote:
Hi!
On 05/30/2010 11:17 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi!
So much discussion about that little post... :)
On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Yes but in that case try 1.0 try 1.1 alpha
Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :)
I do not know what you are implying.
Eh, "top posting". See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
So it was not an implication of anything, I just joked a little.
...but I see in this post that you are interleaving instead :)
But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver and if all these stuff make sense. Conclusion - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple. - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now.
Yeah, I am all with you.
Just wondering if... well, I chose 1.0 since it is clearly what the website "wants me to do" so to speak. And 1.1 is mentioned as "bleeding edge" etc.
But if you think I will have a smoother ride in 1.1, then perhaps the site should somehow indicate that. But again, I really don't know if that is a good idea.
Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing".
And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I?
I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :)
Yes it really is. Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better.
Then perhaps you *should* write that on the website somehow. Like:
"Even though 1.1 is still in alpha development we feel it is even in its current state a much better environment than 1.0 for development. But it is of course not yet a stable baseline."
Also, if you only backport showstoppers (and not "bugs") then 1.0 is as of today not even preferrable from a stability standpoint, or?
regards, Göran
PS. I am really trying to be constructive here, these problems are generic in nature and Squeak.org suffer from the exact same issues of course - devel vs stable etc. Just curious how Pharo should "talk to newcomers" about it.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Thanks for the suggestions, Göran. I've updated the frontpage of the website. Adrian On May 31, 2010, at 00:02 , Göran Krampe wrote:
Hi!
On 05/30/2010 11:17 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi!
So much discussion about that little post... :)
On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Yes but in that case try 1.0 try 1.1 alpha
Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :)
I do not know what you are implying.
Eh, "top posting". See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
So it was not an implication of anything, I just joked a little.
...but I see in this post that you are interleaving instead :)
But I think that we are trying to building a process for pharo so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and what can we deliver and if all these stuff make sense. Conclusion - we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes - even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but we can try something simple. - short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now.
Yeah, I am all with you.
Just wondering if... well, I chose 1.0 since it is clearly what the website "wants me to do" so to speak. And 1.1 is mentioned as "bleeding edge" etc.
But if you think I will have a smoother ride in 1.1, then perhaps the site should somehow indicate that. But again, I really don't know if that is a good idea.
Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting "what I was trying to do and ended up doing".
And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I?
I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was to be considered "outdated" already :)
Yes it really is. Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better.
Then perhaps you *should* write that on the website somehow. Like:
"Even though 1.1 is still in alpha development we feel it is even in its current state a much better environment than 1.0 for development. But it is of course not yet a stable baseline."
Also, if you only backport showstoppers (and not "bugs") then 1.0 is as of today not even preferrable from a stability standpoint, or?
regards, Göran
PS. I am really trying to be constructive here, these problems are generic in nature and Squeak.org suffer from the exact same issues of course - devel vs stable etc. Just curious how Pharo should "talk to newcomers" about it.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
so far none. :) Now it would be good to use the bug tracker to create a list of issues we closed. Lukas told me that this is easy. Stef
If there is a need for backporting important fixes to 1.0 I can do that during the sprint next Saturday. But I would need to know *which* fixes are the critical ones.
Adrian
On May 30, 2010, at 18:10 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I'd guess the important thing is to explain on the Pharo web site that bug fixes are in the 1.1 and are not (always) retrofitted to 1.0
only showstoppers = severe bugs = that can put the system on his knees. But probably we should stay that:
"In the current set of ressources only showstoppers or extremely severe bugs are retrofitted in old versions"
Stef
Stephan
_______________________________________________ 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 30.05.2010 13:24, Göran Krampe wrote:
Hi!
CCing Pharo list, this was regarding:
http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/eblankett-dev.rdoc
On 05/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
Hello Göran,
Is there a special reason you tried Pharo 1.0? Your improvements are of
Nope, just (wrongly I agree) thought it was fairly up to date since it was just released. But you are right, depending on release process that does indeed not necessarily correlate. Pharo 1.0 was in freeze for a loooong time, mostly due to the problematic network changes that ended up getting reverted. Why none of the bugfixes have been bundled up as a 1.0 upgrade, I'm not entirely certain, but the awareness of marking bugfixes as 1.0.1 has been fairly low :/ In either case you'd probably not find Date readFrom:pattern: in such a patch.
course in 1.1. Feature freeze for 1.0 was long ago. If you're willing to use the bleeding edge in squeak, why not do it in pharo too?
Again, not a conscious choice. I can use bleeding edge in Pharo too, is there an easy place to start? Earlier I used some core + Renggli scripts to get a decent image.
Which peek bugfix is in Squeak? The 2010-1-13 solution is wrong. See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1813.
I will check it out, gotta work on the house now :)
Groetjes, Stephan Eggermont
Thanks for the feedback, Göran
The peek bug fix, the perform:withArguments: fix and Date readFrom:pattern: are all in an updated Pharo 1.1. You can get a fairly recent core image from https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/27017/PharoCore-1.1-11367-Beta.zip or a dev image from https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/27025/Pharo-1.1-11367-Betadev10.05.... (Update 11369 included the perform:withArguments: fix, you'd have to do Utilities updateFromServer manually in the dev image) Cheers, Henry
CCing Pharo list, this was regarding:
http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/eblankett-dev.rdoc
On 05/30/2010 12:00 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
Hello Göran,
Is there a special reason you tried Pharo 1.0? Your improvements are of
Nope, just (wrongly I agree) thought it was fairly up to date since it was just released. But you are right, depending on release process that does indeed not necessarily correlate. Pharo 1.0 was in freeze for a loooong time, mostly due to the problematic network changes that ended up getting reverted. Why none of the bugfixes have been bundled up as a 1.0 upgrade,
time money time money time time time time time time time time time and tada time And what is an important fix/enh that should be included 1.1: a bug that really break the system and I do not think that this one broke the system since so far nobody ever complained. Now if as a community we are able to gather money then we can fix that easily :) and 1.1 is far far far better than 1.1
I'm not entirely certain, but the awareness of marking bugfixes as 1.0.1 has been fairly low :/ In either case you'd probably not find Date readFrom:pattern: in such a patch.
course in 1.1. Feature freeze for 1.0 was long ago. If you're willing to use the bleeding edge in squeak, why not do it in pharo too?
Again, not a conscious choice. I can use bleeding edge in Pharo too, is there an easy place to start? Earlier I used some core + Renggli scripts to get a decent image.
Which peek bugfix is in Squeak? The 2010-1-13 solution is wrong. See http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1813.
I will check it out, gotta work on the house now :)
Groetjes, Stephan Eggermont
Thanks for the feedback, Göran
The peek bug fix, the perform:withArguments: fix and Date readFrom:pattern: are all in an updated Pharo 1.1. You can get a fairly recent core image from https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/27017/PharoCore-1.1-11367-Beta.zip or a dev image from https://gforge.inria.fr/frs/download.php/27025/Pharo-1.1-11367-Betadev10.05.... (Update 11369 included the perform:withArguments: fix, you'd have to do Utilities updateFromServer manually in the dev image)
and tons of even cooler ones. Stef
participants (6)
-
Adrian Lienhard -
Göran Krampe -
Henrik Sperre Johansen -
Igor Stasenko -
Stephan Eggermont -
Stéphane Ducasse