> On Jan 13, 2018, at 7:49 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 13 Jan 2018, at 15:13, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Sven, >> >>> On Jan 13, 2018, at 6:01 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 13 Jan 2018, at 05:22, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Isn't it important to preserve the ability to exchange code between Pharo, >>>> Squeak and Cuis? Don't you care that the VM development is directly >>>> affected by this? Is the VM and plugin support not important to Pharo? >>> >>> Eliot, >>> >>> Not trying to minimise your contributions (we all love the VM), and I know >>> that you favour collaboration, but >>> >>> (1) what non-trivial code is actively maintained from a single code base >>> between Pharo, Squeak and Cuis ? >> >> Alien > > Hmm, not that active. And it requires Pharo/Cuis to use an 'older' loading > mechanism (from their perspective evolving to git SCM).
Alien contains callbacks. As such, fundamental parts of Pharo depend on it. And your comment "use an 'older' loading mechanism" demonstrates that the git integration is not simply a back-end, but is affecting Monticello, IMO not for the better. > Other than that, a very short list. You know just as well as that it is close > to impossible to do this (Seaside and FUEL are the only real counter > examples, and even there it is a lot of work). I disagree. The core of refactoring (all except a small tool layer) is in common. And there are numerous compatibility packages out there, grease, but also, as in the refactoring engine, a common core with small Foo-Platform-Pharo & Foo-Platform-Squeak etc. I think to home up with an accurate picture free of our differences my opinions we would have to make a list. > >>> (2) how/where are you developing in Pharo ? I only see you contributing to >>> Squeak, where only a handful of very experienced developers are making >>> occasional, conservative changes to maintain their own environment. >> >> You may be using the 64-bit version of Pharo. That is my work. If you're >> using the FFI then I've had a part in it (callbacks being the most >> specific). And the new release will use the Sista bytecode set. That's me >> and Clément. Clément and others integrate stuff on my behalf. I also work >> closely with people in the Pharo community and get work from users of Pharo. >> Pharo is important to me. But this isn't about me. > > I started by saying that I know and appreciate your work. Since I did not say > anything otherwise, you do not need to get defensive. I'm not being defensive. You made this personal. I wanted to state that I have made contributions to contradict your assertion that. Eye be the vm I did not. But I have nothing to feel defensive about. On the contrary I care about the collaboration between different communities above the common vm, and I care deeply; I gave skin in the game. > > "They integrate an my behalf" is exactly my point: you do something in your > closed world and others can follow. How is "my world" my world, and how is it closed? >> I disagree with your description of the Squeak community. St Potsdam it is >> used by students. The raspberry pi scratch was in Squeak until late last >> year. It is not as you describe. > > It is and you know it. I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from projecting on me. I'm not in the habit of lying. It isn't. You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. > >>> For me, and many others the VM is a completely closed ecosystem, a black >>> box. A know the simulator is cool, but I have never seen it. >> >> What does that have to do with this discussion? > > Because you argue about collaboration while you act in a certain way. Again, > I am fine if you make certain choices, everyone does, but you cannot ask > others to do what you do no do yourself. Again you presume to know about my actions. I don't presume to know about your activities. > >>> Your choice to use Squeak is a valid one that probably makes sense to you, >>> but you must also respect the successful alternative that Pharo is. >> >> Again how does my criticisms my the git integration have anything to do with >> Pharo being a successful alternative? Do you think I want Pharo to fail? >> Do you think I would bother commenting if I wasn't interested? > > SCM and moving to git was argued about ad infinitum for years, Pharo (and > others) are moving to it since a very long time. We're not there yet, but > progress is good. (And yes the timestamps have to come back, the history is > another issue). Starting 2018 by attacking that all that work is very cool > indeed ;-) > > Stef explained factually how we still maintain enough modelling in Smalltalk. > >>> Sven >>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Torsten Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Not having timestamps/authors in Pharo 7 due to git and missing blame >>>>> support >>>>> (see [1]) has other bad side effects: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - it clobbers all method stamps in an MCZ package [1] if you use >>>>> Monticello >>>>> which can lead easily to trouble/lamenting >>>>> >>>>> - it is not possible to fileout a changeset [2] in the ChangeSorter >>>>> >>>>> Was there any further discussion/decision for P7 on solving this >>>>> or adding blame support? >>>>> >>>>> Thx >>>>> T. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://forum.world.st/Author-name-in-version-Iceberg-td4968472.html >>>>> [2] >>>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2018-January/026350.html >>>>> [3] https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20951/ > >
