[Issue tracker] *Please* look at your old reported issues!
Hi, We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is! If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue? Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute? It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter. Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases. The issue tracker is not a one way street! Marcus
Most of the feedback is "won't fix" or "done in 4.x or 5.x" All nice but hard to look at as day to day work is in 3.0 This effect will only get worse over time I guess. On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi,
We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter.
Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases.
The issue tracker is not a one way street!
Marcus
Yes, there is not enough man power, we maintain one version back. This means that everything people backport to Pharo4 will be integrated. hil@highoctane.be wrote:
Most of the feedback is "won't fix" or "done in 4.x or 5.x" All nice but hard to look at as day to day work is in 3.0
This effect will only get worse over time I guess.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>> wrote: Hi,
We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter.
Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases.
The issue tracker is not a one way street!
Marcus
On 30 Jul 2015, at 10:42, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
Yes, there is not enough man power, we maintain one version back. This means that everything people backport to Pharo4 will be integrated.
With âindefiniteâ manpower this might be different, but even then you are in a lot of danger to reach a point where âmaintaining Pharo3â will turn into the same amount of change that is âPharo4â. Change is hard. Marcus
On 30 Jul 2015, at 10:27, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
Most of the feedback is "won't fix" or "done in 4.x or 5.x" All nice but hard to look at as day to day work is in 3.0
You have to move, you are missing out on all the nice stuff ! Seriously, I understand that you stay at what you know because things are probably already complex enough, but really upgrading is often easier than you think.
This effect will only get worse over time I guess.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote: Hi,
We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter.
Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases.
The issue tracker is not a one way street!
Marcus
Not with the tons of configs I load and the fact that Roassal2 has been moving under my feet. Phil On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2015, at 10:27, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
Most of the feedback is "won't fix" or "done in 4.x or 5.x" All nice but hard to look at as day to day work is in 3.0
You have to move, you are missing out on all the nice stuff !
Seriously, I understand that you stay at what you know because things are probably already complex enough, but really upgrading is often easier than you think.
This effect will only get worse over time I guess.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote: Hi,
We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter.
Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases.
The issue tracker is not a one way street!
Marcus
philippeback wrote
Not with the tons of configs I load and the fact that Roassal2 has been moving under my feet.
Does this prevent you even from upgrading to 4.0? I use 4.0 every day and have found it very stable. ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Issue-tracker-Please-look-at-your-old-reported-issues-... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Not with the tons of configs I load and the fact that Roassal2 has been moving under my feet.
But do you still stand ? :-) Is everything okay with Roassal2 config? Cheers, Alexandre
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu <mailto:sven@stfx.eu>> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2015, at 10:27, phil@highoctane.be <mailto:phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
Most of the feedback is "won't fix" or "done in 4.x or 5.x" All nice but hard to look at as day to day work is in 3.0
You have to move, you are missing out on all the nice stuff !
Seriously, I understand that you stay at what you know because things are probably already complex enough, but really upgrading is often easier than you think.
This effect will only get worse over time I guess.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr <mailto:marcus.denker@inria.fr>> wrote: Hi,
We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter.
Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases.
The issue tracker is not a one way street!
Marcus
I forked my own version at this point and load it via gitfiletree. I'd have to merge some things back but as I have read that you will move away from trachel to bloc, well, all the html5/svg/js stuff will not work anymore, this may not make sense. Phil Le 30 juil. 2015 17:30, "Alexandre Bergel" <alexandre.bergel@me.com> a écrit :
Not with the tons of configs I load and the fact that Roassal2 has been moving under my feet.
But do you still stand ? :-)
Is everything okay with Roassal2 config?
Cheers, Alexandre
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2015, at 10:27, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
Most of the feedback is "won't fix" or "done in 4.x or 5.x" All nice but hard to look at as day to day work is in 3.0
You have to move, you are missing out on all the nice stuff !
Seriously, I understand that you stay at what you know because things are probably already complex enough, but really upgrading is often easier than you think.
This effect will only get worse over time I guess.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote: Hi,
We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter.
Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases.
The issue tracker is not a one way street!
Marcus
The html export is highly important. Moving to bloc will not move Roassal backward Alexandre
Le 30 juil. 2015 à 13:41, "phil@highoctane.be" <phil@highoctane.be> a écrit :
I'd have to merge some things back but as I have read that you will move away from trachel to bloc, well, all the html5/svg/js stuff will not work anymore, this may not make sense
Adding to that: no incentive to move to 4.x or 5.x for that very project. For my own stuff, this is a different story. Phil On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2015, at 10:27, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
Most of the feedback is "won't fix" or "done in 4.x or 5.x" All nice but hard to look at as day to day work is in 3.0
You have to move, you are missing out on all the nice stuff !
Seriously, I understand that you stay at what you know because things are probably already complex enough, but really upgrading is often easier than you think.
This effect will only get worse over time I guess.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote: Hi,
We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter.
Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases.
The issue tracker is not a one way street!
Marcus
Le 30/07/2015 09:04, Marcus Denker a écrit :
Hi,
We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter.
Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases.
The issue tracker is not a one way street!
Marcus
I think we can close this issue: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/4399/deprecate-on-send-to-and-use-when-sen... We deprecated Announcer>>on:send:to: and Announcer>>on:do: previously. -- Cheers Cyril
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Ferlicot D. Cyril <cyril.ferlicot@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 30/07/2015 09:04, Marcus Denker a écrit :
Hi,
We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter.
Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases.
The issue tracker is not a one way street!
Marcus
I think we can close this issue: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/4399/deprecate-on-send-to-and-use-when-sen...
We deprecated Announcer>>on:send:to: and Announcer>>on:do: previously.
Do all senders need to be converted first? cheers -ben
I know that "bernardo" did many conversions now may be there are some left. So we should have a deprecation. Stef Le 10/8/15 18:22, Ben Coman a écrit :
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Ferlicot D. Cyril <cyril.ferlicot@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 30/07/2015 09:04, Marcus Denker a écrit :
Hi,
We have 622 open issues. There are *a lot* of old issues that nobody will ever look at. Please check those that *you* submitted to see what the status is!
If it is just âwould be niceâ, but not even on a level that you yourself are willing to even send a mail to the mailing list to get people interested in helping you to push the case forward, maybe you could think about closing the issue?
Maybe someone asked a question? If you submit an issue and there is a question not answered for a month, we should close it: How important can it be? Why should *I* spend the time to fix this issue if *you* are not even willing to answer a question in a minute?
It makes no sense to have lots and lots of issues that are not important even for the submitter.
Another thing is that issues get fixed, subsystems replaced, code removed⦠and the amazing thing is that *never* the submitter of the original report closes it, even in these obvious cases.
The issue tracker is not a one way street!
Marcus
I think we can close this issue: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/4399/deprecate-on-send-to-and-use-when-sen...
We deprecated Announcer>>on:send:to: and Announcer>>on:do: previously.
Do all senders need to be converted first? cheers -ben
Le 10/08/2015 21:58, stepharo a écrit :
I know that "bernardo" did many conversions now may be there are some left. So we should have a deprecation.
Since 50201 Announcer>>on:send:to: and Annoucer>>on:do: are deprecated.
Stef
-- Cheers Cyril
Hi all, the current state of the conversion its mention in https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?14024 There are many false positives that i have tracked, but there is one sender that i'm not sure about. please read the issue On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Ferlicot D. Cyril <cyril.ferlicot@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 10/08/2015 21:58, stepharo a écrit :
I know that "bernardo" did many conversions now may be there are some left. So we should have a deprecation.
Since 50201 Announcer>>on:send:to: and Annoucer>>on:do: are deprecated.
Stef
-- Cheers Cyril
-- Bernardo E.C. Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.
participants (9)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Ben Coman -
Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras -
Ferlicot D. Cyril -
Marcus Denker -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Sean P. DeNigris -
stepharo -
Sven Van Caekenberghe