>> I think Matthiew and Keith... and some others, really pushed the idea >> to live with forks (instead of building another image)... After a >> year or two, people start to go in their way... + people have maybe >> more time to collaborate. IMO, the arrival of Igor and Eliot is also a >> big win...0 >> > But note Igor and Elliot are folks thinking in an inclusive manner. > Neither are they simply squeak/pharo focused.
of course I've noticed ;) >> I think 2008 was a good smalltalk year... Pharo is a good choice >> though because you offer something to developer that was simply absent >> before and moreover, "people" were really reluctant to go in that >> direction for squeak hence all your problems... So still, even if >> > Actually no, I did not see any reluctance to go in that direction at > all. there were... > In fact the tabled proposals for 3.11+ had identical goals to > pharo's but a different way of getting there. The Pharo team required > that they have full control, whereas the 3.11 team assumes that they > dont have control, they are facilitating through tools. there something true... squeak decision process is democratic... but with so many people having different interest it's hard to converge. Pharo is not democratic... but this is therefore quick to respond.. I find the tools orientation very clever ;) >> there's a resurgence of squeak development collaboration, Pharo has >> its place for the everyday developer (even people like me who like to >> do simple stuffs ... but in smalltalk). I see Pharo as the Smalltalk >> oriented to developers, where you experience good development >> practices (and invent new one) whereas squeak is more global, touch at >> everything, experiment in all directions... >> >> Pharo decision process will be anyway quicker than squeak (even with >> Andreas proposal)... You can't imagine how much a little change like >> the menu shrinking is important to me (and looked impossible to ask >> for in squeak...). > Why? We have had a mechanism for proposing and loading such changes for > 3 years. If you wanted to try new menus you could submit the changeset > to mantis and make that available for everyone. You didnt have to ask > anyone. I would happily use such a contribution. I reckon whereas I find the idea of installer cool, I'm just puzzled on how to use it...plus sometimes, before trying to do something, you just ask... (i did not clean the menu). I asked some maybe naive question/request on dev list and lots were simply never answered... I know it's a whole process to write and sen the right email... but here, I'm pretty sure I'll get a response. This is also to me an example of a difficulty with your mechanism/compared to Pharo decision process... because even just cleaning the menu involves others changes... In pharo the decision was taken to do it... so it's integrated... and adapted... I'm pretty sure this is not obvious in squeak... harder because nearly on its own to do it... and with big chances of not beeing integrated. and another exemple of positive synergy... Let's say it's robust and cool in Pharo, then it can be brought back to squeak ;) > > What we have been lacking is the build infrastructure for testing and > harnessing such contributions. This was on the road map for 3.10 but > never happened, because the 3.10 team continued to be focussed on the > image as a deliverable rather than the process. new board will favorize that harvest process and as far as I understand bob/sake and friends are the architecture... so it's cool ! Push it ;) > > Keith > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Cédrick _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
