Ok for me. Cheers, Alexandre
On 4 Mar 2009, at 10:30, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > So we should proceed that way: > - Put a big warning + the expression to switch debugger in the pharo- > dev > - then we follow what dale is saying > - I will produce a list of important features we need to have > -- copy stack > -- chase pointer > ... in OT > > Is is ok for your community? > > Stef > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Dale Henrichs <[email protected]> >> Date: March 3, 2009 6:57:36 PM CEST >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: On the OTDebugger... >> Reply-To: [email protected] >> >> Steph, >> >> This note isn't about your 'disable OB-debugger for now message', >> but it is a response, of sorts to the ensuing discussion. >> >> If you want a '120% debugger' then folks working on Pharo need to >> use the debugger and eat their own dogfood. It's the only way to >> ensure that a tool like the debugger gets enough coverage to ensure >> that it is stable. With that said, I wouldn't want to commit to >> using a tool that was broken or that I couldn't depend upon. >> >> With that in mind, I am willing to commit to the following things: >> >> 1. fix any bugs or implement any features that are deemed as show >> stoppers with the current OTDebugger - i.e., the things that are >> preventing folks from getting work done today. >> >> 2. I also promise a quick response to any show stopper bugs that >> folks come across while doing development with the OTDebugger (or >> any other of the OB-Tools). >> >> I came to maintain the OB-Tools through the 'back door'. I use a >> branch the OB-Tools in GLASS and have decided to maintain the OB- >> Tools for the Squeak/Pharo community as a way to contribute back to >> the community. What that means specifically is that next to Lukas, I >> probably know more about the OB-Tools than anyone else, however, I >> don't have a laundry list of features that need to be added to the >> debugger. >> >> I could go through the Squeak debugger and duplicate all of the >> 'missing features', but my personal sense is that some of those >> features aren't useful - I know that I have not even read all of the >> menu items in the old Squeak debugger, let alone tried to figure out >> what they do... >> >> Getting a list of important/missing features from a small group is >> important to me (at least at the start). I don't have a personal >> sense of "what's missing" from the current OTDebugger, since I have >> not used the old Squeak debugger extensively. So getting feedback >> from "old hands" is important, but I also know that I won't be able >> to respond correctly to a general query for "what's missing from the >> debugger?" >> >> For direction towards the "120% debugger", I think it makes sense >> that you and rest of the Pharo leadership team make a list of >> "debugger franchise features" - i.e., a list of features that are a >> must have for the Pharo debugger and the other OB-Tools as well >> (BTW, if that list is to "duplicate all of the 'missing features'" >> then that's fine and I'm willing to do it). >> >> The debugger along with browsers are the face of the development >> environment and I don't want to bloat the debugger without at least >> a second opinion and I trust the opinions of you and the rest of the >> Pharo leadership team. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dale >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
