On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Adrian Lienhard <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > On Oct 6, 2009, at 22:36 , Michael Roberts wrote: > >> i would mark [...] > > I agree. Do you want to update the tracker? >
i've updated the debugger highlight. i'll mark the decompiler tests later in the week. they don't yet have a # i think. > > I noticed that after the recent closure fixes there are a couple of > new failures and errors. For instance > AuthorTest>>#testDeprecatedSendsRemoved (I guess the reported senders > of a selector changed with some closure changes). > > see http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/BaselineTestResults > yes, i saw and the recent thread. one of the things that is difficult with merging eliot's changes is knowing what is intentional or not between the pharo base and the change. it would be good if we could comment or annotate key 'pharo fixes' (to the compiler & machinery) so that it is obvious in a diff browser. if we genuinely think we have a fix then we can feed it back to eliot. we are likely to want to take compiler changes for sometime, presumably all the way to the JIT. > > ok. I think we should seriously check the remaining errors/failures > before marking them. yes i would like a serious review but of course it requires folks to do it. now you're back from your holiday ;-)... the other thing i thought was a good candidate for 1.0 was the latest MC patch stef posted. those semantics are vital, and look an increment on previous changes we had taken to load the compiler. i just wanted to test it before recommending. cheers, Mike _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
