I agree with Norbert: the problem lies in the definition of LTS. Right now, Pharo 8 is the moving thing, Pharo 7 is stable and receives back ports of selected fixes.
Each older Pharo version is also stable: what worked years ago, still works today. I have many Pharo 4 images running in production, they even get new application code that was developed in Pharo 7 images. LTS is also a bit of a trap: Ubuntu has it for Linux, but after 5 or 10 years you still have to move, and then it will be quite hard because you never did any small steps. We had similar problems in the Java and Javascript worlds (to name two much larger communities): one day some critical part that you depend on becomes obsolete, and then you have a problem. > On 11 Apr 2019, at 23:34, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Am 11.04.2019 um 21:35 schrieb Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]>: > >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:54 AM Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Am 11.04.2019 um 15:29 schrieb Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]>: >> >>> Hi Esteban, >>> >>> We talk this privately a couple of weeks ago, but I thought it was worth >>> writing again here. As for other IDE's being enjoyable, I can only talk >>> about VASmalltalk. If there is ONE thing I enjoy from it, is the stability. >>> May be ugly, may be too-windows, may be full of menus you don't understand >>> what they do, but it's really rock solid. >>> Pharo has been doing a LOT of progress on so many areas and its expected to >>> decrease a bit on stability. Unless you are Oracle and can hire 100 >>> engineers. >>> So, my small recommendation to you back then was to make at least ONE >>> release (called LTS or whatever) were you just focus on stability and bugs. >>> No new features. No new framework. Just stability. Make it rock solid. Then >>> after that release, you can keep moving forward, but that would give >>> companies and really really stable Pharo to rely on. >>> >> For the provision of an LTS version we need more engineers. If there are >> enough companies that need a rock solid stable version then the consortium >> will have enough money to hire engineers for that. >> >> Well, either that or convince the community that that is a good thing. >> Obviously, when you don't pay for that and things come for free it's >> understandable you can't decide on what type of effort/results you get. And >> for almost all of us, is much way more cool to provide a new framework, a >> new tool, etc than bug fixing and testing. >> > Yes and it is ok it is that way. Peope spend their time and want to do > something fun not the boring part. There might be projects which developed a > culture of providing that as a value. But a general rule for open source work > is „Either it is fun or it needs to be paid“. I cannot see anything wrong > with that. And I if try to think about an LTS version that is not backed up > by a company I cannot come up with one quickly. > And when we discuss this topic I want to have a clearer definition of terms. > To me there are „stability“ and „stand-still“ mixed in the readings. Pharo > provides quite a good stability while its moving. And that is IMHO the only > way it can work. > And yet there is a place for an LTS. But who uses the new version then? How > can you ever move because people just using the „stagnated“ version? > > Norbert >> >> I would put a virtual machine that we can control much higher on the list of >> things we should have. >> >> Norbert >> >>> Best, >>> >>> -- >>> Mariano Martinez Peck >>> Email: [email protected] >>> Twitter: @MartinezPeck >>> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-mart%C3%ADnez-peck/ >> >> >> -- >> Mariano Martinez Peck >> Email: [email protected] >> Twitter: @MartinezPeck >> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-mart%C3%ADnez-peck/
