[Pharo-dev] Minheadless trial

Ben Coman btc at openinworld.com
Wed Dec 5 11:14:33 EST 2018


On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 23:29, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 5 Dec 2018, at 16:19, Ben Coman <btc at openinworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 21:53, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Eliot,
>>
>> On 5 Dec 2018, at 14:46, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Esteban,
>>
>> On Aug 7, 2018, at 4:36 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’m slowly working on that VM because we want it to be the default for
>> Pharo 8.
>> In our vision, it should be a responsibility of the image to start or not
>> a graphical UI, so we are preparing (we have been preparing to it for
>> years, actually) to achieve this behaviour.
>> To make this work, we need all platforms covered (and another huge
>> quantity of changes here and there).
>> Anyway, I didn’t merge because I wanted to have win64 covered, not just
>> what we have now, and since no-one was using that VM I didn’t feel pression
>> to do it :)
>>
>>
>> How does that answer Norbert’s question?  By doing the work in your own
>> fork you risk forking.  Do you want to fork?  If not, why not do the work
>> in opensmalltalk-vm?
>>
>> I guess you mean "why not do the work directly on the Cog branch of the
> OpenSmalltalk account”,
>
>
> That’s not how you work on git/github and I prefer to keep it “as
> intended”.
>
> because any other branch is no different to any other branch regardless of
> which account its stored in.
> The "opensmaltalk-vm repo" is a single big commit graph across all
> accounts, as you can see...
> https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/network
>
> Whether any development-branch becomes a real-fork in the old vernacular
> is not how long it stays unmerged from the mainline-branch
> but how often the development-branch is updated to merge in the
> mainline-branch.  The network graph is useful to understand the situation
> here.
>
>
> This is old thing (there is a pull request now, since like 3 weeks).
>> I worked on my fork because that’s how you do it with git: you fork, you
>> work, and you do a Pull Request when ready.
>> I was explaining why the PR was not still done: I wanted to have covered
>> the three platforms before doing it.
>>
>
> On the flip side, release early release is a good policy.
>
>
> Yeah, but for that you need to have something that you can release.
> minheadless was developed by Ronie (I just made the makefiles and adapted
> to build pharovms). And then it stalled around until I decided to took it
> and merge it… I’m going to be susceptible and say that frankly I do not
> understand the tone of this mails.
>
> It was your merge of minheadless into Cog that stimulated me to add my
> minor minheadless tweaks.
>
>
> And I’m grateful :)
>
> I know I could have submitted a PR direct to your minheadless branch, but
> somehow it just felt more comfortable
> submitting it to the mainline Cog branch.
>
>
>>
>> I guess the terminology is confusing you?
>>
>
> That doesn't help.
>
>
> Why? Terminology *is* confusing, at least for me.
>

It came across sarcastic.  My apologies.  Email is a poor medium sometimes.

cheers -ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-dev_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20181206/d2ebafa5/attachment.html>


More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list