Hi all--
Eliot writes:
> Do you want to remove the method simply because there are no senders
> in the image?
>
> If so, this is indicative of a serious problem with the Pharo
> development process. In the summer I ported VMMaker.oscog to Pharo 6.
> Now as feenk try and build a VMMaker.oscog image on Pharo 7, the
> system is broken, in part because of depreciations and in part because
> useful methods (isOptimisedBlock (isOptimizedBlock?) in the Opal
> compiler) have been removed.
>
> Just because a method is not in the image does not imply it is not in
> use. It simply means that it is not in use in the base image. As the
> system gets modularised this issue will only increase. There are lots
> of collection methods that exist as a library that are not used in the
> base image and removing them would clearly damage the library for
> users. This is the case for lots of so-called system code. There are
> users out there, like those of us in the vm team, who rely on such
> system code, and it is extremely unsettling and frustrating to have
> that system code change all the time. If Pharo is to be a useful
> platform to the vm team it has to be more stable.
Esteban responds:
> ...we are told that we remove things without caring.
I don't see where Eliot said anyone didn't care.
Stef responds:
> About the method removed, could you please react less negatively? It
> would be nice.
>
> ...
>
> How much time opening a bug entry can take? Under 1 min I guess. So
> why if marcus removed it inadvertly would you want to make him feel
> bad?
Eliot said the system has to be more stable. It doesn't seem like a
negative reaction, or an attempt to make anyone feel bad. As Ben pointed
out, the major cost of reporting regressions isn't the time spent
interacting with the bug-tracking system, it's being switched away from
what you were doing. Using the automated regression-testing system seems
like a good way of catching this particular issue (even though it's a
step away from having full live traceability all the time, before
committing changes).
> For calypso we try and sometimes fail and retry. But we do not rant...
> The solution is also to have ***********positive*********
> communication... There is no point to piss on our process... So before
> bashing us I would expect a bit of respect that it is due to our track
> record... it would be nice if you could refrain to be systematically
> negative about what we are doing.
I don't think Eliot is being systematically negative, or that he
was ranting, pissing, or bashing. I think introducing those accusatory
words into the conversation detracts from positive communication.
> I think that we are doing a great job make Smalltalk cool.
I do, too! (And thanks for using that word. ;)
thanks,
-C
--
Craig Latta
Black Page Digital
Amsterdam :: San Francisco
[email protected]
+31 6 2757 7177 (SMS ok)
+ 1 415 287 3547 (no SMS)
