>>> >> >> Who says that? We always said that we will back-port all imported fixes to >> 2.0. We will not back-port *everything*, especially >> not improvements that are not fixes, because then there would be no >> difference between Pharo3 and Pharo2 (and these >> tend to introduce new problems, making it very hard to stabilize). > > Are you afraid that by improving Pharo2 on a production-level, you would > remove incentives to move to pharo3?
No just that we do not want to stop 3.0. Because changing 20 will introduce bug we are 100% convinced about that. The system is still not in a situation where changes are simple and with limited impact. >> But it is clear that this is a fine line: one persons fix is the others >> persons bug, so we tend to be conservative. >> But nevertheless, all show-stopping bugs should be fixed. > > I'm OK with that. It's just that I'm updating a fix for a bug on both Pharo2 > and Pharo3 by myself just to be able to open a file browser and get correct > file permissions. > > I'm also unable to be sympathetic to a situation where I have two versions of > a code just because when deprecating ensureDeleted in 3.0, nobody thought > usefull to backport ensureDelete so that we could ensure that code using > ensureDelete could work on both versions. This is simple nobody told us. Open an issue and tag it 20 + code and it will be in the batch of 2.0. > >> In general: It is *a lot* of work, and it is hard to get right in all cases. >> But considering that: do we really do that badly? > > I can undestand that. I'm not sure :) Because I regularly figure out that **I** do NOT understand how exactly it is difficult and demanding energy to produce something good. > I also understand that you need 3.0 to be declared unstable to be able to > make the necessary improvements in it. > > But this has the following consequences for non-core development, say SmaCC > for example: 2.0 is the platform for unstable, No it is not 2.0 is stable. We have production code with it. Now it is not bug free and 1.4 is far from bug free. It is just that you do not get touched by these bugs. > 1.4 is where your stuff is stable (2.0 if you're lucky), and 3.0 is don't > develop until it has reached a sufficient level of maturity. > I will do things on SmaCC in the near future, but not on 3.0. this is a mistake to me. Because if you discover bugs we will fix them. Now if you wait one year to move to 3.0 we will be working on 4.0 and the story will never ends. Stef > > Thierry > -- > Thierry Goubier > CEA list > Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués > 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex > France > Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95 >
