[Pharo-project] the future of squeaksource
Hi all, Given that SmalltalkHub is now stable we were considering to discontinue SqueakSource. Our idea is to provide a grace period of a couple of months to allow the current active users to migrate their projects to the new service and then simply put squeaksource in read-only mode (simply exposing the directory structure and allowing downloads). What do you think about it ? Are there any good reasons to still keep SqueakSource alive? Cheers, The SCG Team
On May 7, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Andrei Vasile Chis <chisvasileandrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Given that SmalltalkHub is now stable we were considering to discontinue SqueakSource. Our idea is to provide a grace period of a couple of months to allow the current active users to migrate their projects to the new service and then simply put squeaksource in read-only mode (simply exposing the directory structure and allowing downloads).
What do you think about it ?
Yes, I think this is the way to go⦠there are better things to do than to keep it alive with the limited resources we have. And if the file system is available, all scripts loading things from there will continue to work. Marcus
I think it would be helpful to have those public open source licensed projects that are not yet loaded on ss3 or smalltalk hub copied there for posterity. Maybe make a squeaksource archive account on each platform that does the copying. On 05/07/2013 08:19 AM, Andrei Vasile Chis wrote:
Hi all,
Given that SmalltalkHub is now stable we were considering to discontinue SqueakSource. Our idea is to provide a grace period of a couple of months to allow the current active users to migrate their projects to the new service and then simply put squeaksource in read-only mode (simply exposing the directory structure and allowing downloads).
What do you think about it ? Are there any good reasons to still keep SqueakSource alive?
Cheers, The SCG Team
On 2013-05-07, at 23:21, Paul DeBruicker <pdebruic@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it would be helpful to have those public open source licensed projects that are not yet loaded on ss3 or smalltalk hub copied there for posterity. Maybe make a squeaksource archive account on each platform that does the copying.
Just for the record: they won't be removed from squeaksource, the projects will just be read-only.
On 05/07/2013 08:19 AM, Andrei Vasile Chis wrote:
Hi all,
Given that SmalltalkHub is now stable we were considering to discontinue SqueakSource. Our idea is to provide a grace period of a couple of months to allow the current active users to migrate their projects to the new service and then simply put squeaksource in read-only mode (simply exposing the directory structure and allowing downloads).
What do you think about it ? Are there any good reasons to still keep SqueakSource alive?
Cheers, The SCG Team
On May 7, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Paul DeBruicker <pdebruic@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it would be helpful to have those public open source licensed projects that are not yet loaded on ss3 or smalltalk hub copied there for posterity. Maybe make a squeaksource archive account on each platform that does the copying.
If the file system view stays available via squeaksource.com, people can do this lazily as needed. And having the files available via http should be easy to just keep forever⦠Disk space is cheap. Marcus
On May 7, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Andrei Vasile Chis <chisvasileandrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Given that SmalltalkHub is now stable we were considering to discontinue SqueakSource. Our idea is to provide a grace period of a couple of months to allow the current active users to migrate their projects to the new service and then simply put squeaksource in read-only mode (simply exposing the directory structure and allowing downloads).
What do you think about it ? Are there any good reasons to still keep SqueakSource alive?
Keep it alive so that we can slowly migrate. Because migrating takes a lot of time.
Cheers, The SCG Team
We were thinking of keeping the current image alive for one or two more months. Then replace it with just a simple view of the file system. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:50 AM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr>wrote:
On May 7, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Andrei Vasile Chis <chisvasileandrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Given that SmalltalkHub is now stable we were considering to discontinue SqueakSource. Our idea is to provide a grace period of a couple of months to allow the current active users to migrate their projects to the new service and then simply put squeaksource in read-only mode (simply exposing the directory structure and allowing downloads).
What do you think about it ? Are there any good reasons to still keep SqueakSource alive?
Keep it alive so that we can slowly migrate. Because migrating takes a lot of time.
Cheers, The SCG Team
participants (5)
-
Andrei Vasile Chis -
Camillo Bruni -
Marcus Denker -
Paul DeBruicker -
stephane ducasse