On 24 Aug 2016, at 09:38, stepharo <steph...@free.fr
<mailto:steph...@free.fr>> wrote:
Hi Hernan
First thanks for your email because we may disagree but we often
agree. :) so this is an email for me.
Hi Stef,
Good communication implies being clear when writing about
sensitive topics, especially when communicating through virtual
channels. I am not in Europe, so I cannot discuss these things
with you face to face.
This is what we want to change with montly videos meeting.
Therefore is not clear to me (and others) what are your policies
in many subjects. Lately I also delayed the release of packages
because my lack of motivation around this community, specially
when discussions exists around three or fourth topics for months.
Like what?
Let us know because we do not
Another "motivational" case for me. I stopped to report bugs in
fogbuz because I felt there was too much "Won't fix" for me
(specifically by a person but I won't go there...) even in cases
where it was ilogical. Then I felt tired of reading "It's like
that. Invalid".
This is a pity.
I know the feeling because some of mine are close too. You are
not the only victim of the "Issue closing syndrom" ;).
And I would like the syndrome to be more human friendly. Thanks
for raising this point.
Now two points
- You should always send a mail to the mailing-list and that
we discuss your points.
- Now what will happen if we all open bugs and none of us
works on the open bugs.
So what is the solution for you. I mean it concretely. How to
deal with dying
Looking at bugs is really difficult. There are not enough people
looking and fixing bugs.
About features.
What's the policy about voting for default features in next
Pharo images? Let's suppose I am a VM/core Pharo maintainer and
I want to include MySuperPackage into a Pharo release, which
nobody needs (and I don't care), but it is useful to me....
there will ever be voting there? (note it doesn't makes sense if
you are a group of 50 always supporting your work)
It does not really work because engineers are paid for certain task.
Images are becoming huge (at least for my workflows). There will
be (more) packages included by default (for promotion?) ?
Thanks to raise this point because I mentioned it also to the
board. So I like when I'm not alone.
Now we should not see look only at the size. Doing nothing is
size zero :)
The point is what are the functionalities delivered.
Three points:
- what are the key things we want?
keybinding, settings, cool inspector cool....
- how many duplicated functionality can we remove:
for example I want to merge MCDefinitions with Ring
with RBDefinition
we removed pseudo*
but this is a lot of work
The goal is to throw many system when bloc and brick
are ready
- what is the list of things that you would remove?
- with the bootstrap and all the packages of the image
managed with Cargo plus the git management
we believe that we will be able to manage a set of images
with minimal images.
- this is several years that we are working on this
goal.
Believe me this is the vision document not for the
sake of it.
How do you plan to manage if some people want the Tests be
removed from the official Image? (Personally I never run them)
- then you use a jenkins job to produce your image where you
unload the tests.
Another example, what happens if another research group came
with a better alternative to Calypso, Brick, Telescope, Bloc.
Would you integrate first your tool to mark territory?
No this is not a question of territory. Doru and GT does not
do that in that spirit.
RMOD too. We do something when we think that this is better.
For example Epicea is three years of work of Martin, Fuel was
so nice that we could not lose it.
You see Ghost got changed by denis, Seamless got rewritten
from scratch.
Who decides? For example (IIRC) TxText and Twisty.
Igor looked at Twisty seriously and I do not think that it
could handle large cobol files.
(you see funnily denis is doing the same with Seamless - He
rewrote it from scratch while
nick worked on it for several years).
Igor wanted to have a stream-based API that could work on
modern command-oriented videos card framework.
My team (on our own money if you understand what it means)
paid Igor to build TxText (and I can tell you that I would
have prefered him to do something else).
The same applies if anyone came with another rewrite of classic
Smalltalk Workspace, Debugger and Inspector tools, what would
you do with GT? GT stays because it came before and others would
be optional?
No this is not like that.
If you are better or answer better needs.
There will be anything like PEPs?
I would love but will people have the energy to implement them?
I would definitively encourage you as a community to raise
points on what you need.
If someone can answer me I think that would be an example of
good communication.
Hernan I always answered your emails. I always consider your
work (and you know it for other reasons and by my facts) after
I'm not always in agreement as I'm not always in agreement with
other board members and this is how live happens.
What is clear is that the most important aspects is to
continue to communicate. This is why the board is launching
this initiative and I would love to see it taken by people
even for their projects.
Hernán
2016-08-24 1:51 GMT-03:00 stepharo <steph...@free.fr
<mailto:steph...@free.fr>>:
Hi guys
the board got a good discussion at ESUG about how to improve
and a lot of the discussion turned around improving
communication. We got some ideas that we will propose soon
but I would like to get *your* ideas.
If you have idea about improving communication around pharo
please tell us.
Stef
