Hi, > On Oct 30, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2016-10-30 11:52 GMT+01:00 Nicolai Hess <[email protected]>: > > > 2016-10-30 11:41 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I actually think there is no disagreement in this discussion :). > > I am not sure about that. > > > I see it similarly to how Dale described it, but perhaps I am wrong. It seems > to me that: > - Guille and Stef are talking about Core, they refer to the smallest image > that can be useful for a developer and that is being built out of the tiny > kernel. Indeed, Mocks do not belong there. Specifically, as FileSystem does > belong in this image, we should not make FileSystem testing depend on Mocks. > - Denis is talking about the typical distribution that we now name the Pharo > image. Mocks might actually belong in this one quite nicely. > > > Denis wants to have a Mock-Framework to be used for SUnit, and if we have > Kernel and Kernel-Tests in the bootstrap image, the Mocks-Framework has to be > in it too, no ? > > From a practical point of view, it is not a good option to add new things for > Pharo 6. We have decided that Pharo 6 is closed for new features. > > Feature freeze? Really, since when? > > Does it means any changes (I am working on) for keymapping and style settings > has to be moved to Pharo 7? >
There was an email sent by Esteban recently in the thread: Notes about Pharo 6 release and new process for Pharo 7 I think that things like your work on keymapping should still make it in this release. Cheers, Doru > However, once we have the new process in place for Pharo 7, we can reconsider > our options. The new process should precisely make it easier and safer to > play with new things for the official distribution that has several > convenience libraries inside. > > @Guille, Stef: Does this reflect what you think? > @Denis: Is this reasonable for you? > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > > On Oct 30, 2016, at 9:33 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Denis > > > > We are working since 4 years now to get > > > > - have a small kernel + tests > > > > - be able to load nicely configurations > > > > We should not add something else than Sunit for tests of the small kernels > > tests. > > > > Now people can use whatever they want to test their system but for the core > > > > we are really picky because loading on single package may add far too many > > dependencies. > > > > and it means > > > > - more time to load > > > > - more time to debug > > > > - more time to just understand what did not work during the bootstrap. > > > > So our goal is to shrink the minimal core and not to extend it. So we will > > add mock by hand if we need them. > > > > I agree with Guillermo. Far too much pain. > > > > Stef > > > > Le 28/10/16 à 18:51, Denis Kudriashov a écrit : > >> We always said that smalltalk is the best for TDD. > >> But we not have mocks by default in Pharo while mocks is fundamental part > >> of TDD. > >> So no kernel tests could benefit from them. > >> And more important TDD is design process and without mocks we can't apply > >> it to kernel with full power. > >> What you think to integrate Mocketry in Pharo 6? > >> It has comments and documentation (PharoInProgress, Help), advanced > >> features and it is very competitive to any modern mock libraries. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Denis > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Value is always contextual." -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot be done."
