Hi david I think that you should wait. 1.1 is stable and out. 1.2 is in flux. When 1.2 gets in beta this will be time to settle down things. Cyrille I know why you want 1.2 version else you cannot build a hudson working solution to run top of the edge version. Now I will do the changes suggested by henrik to get a backward compatible version. I suggest to use metacello to control version now I understand that people want to avoid branching now it means that we (the people working on the unstable stream may lack tools but this is ok).
Stef On Sep 3, 2010, at 6:30 PM, David T. Lewis wrote: > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 01:03:31PM +0200, Cyrille Delaunay wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I would suggest to replace the two methods >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> OSPRocess class >> platformName >> "After Squeak version 3.6, #platformName was moved to SmalltalkImage " >> >> ^ ((Smalltalk classNamed: 'SmalltalkImage') >> ifNil: [^ Smalltalk platformName]) current platformName >> >> OSPRocess class >> osVersion >> "After Squeak version 3.6, #osVersion was moved to SmalltalkImage " >> >> ^ ((Smalltalk classNamed: 'SmalltalkImage') >> ifNil: [^ Smalltalk osVersion]) current osVersion >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> by: >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> OSProcess class >> platformName >> ^ ((Smalltalk classNamed: 'OSPlatform') >> ifNil: [ >> (Smalltalk classNamed: 'SmalltalkImage') current >> ifNil: [^ Smalltalk platformName]]) platformName >> >> OSProcess class >> osVersion >> ^ ((Smalltalk classNamed: 'OSPlatform') >> ifNil: [ >> (Smalltalk classNamed: 'SmalltalkImage') current >> ifNil: [^ Smalltalk osVersion]]) osVersion >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> to avoid deprecation messages when using it in Pharo 1.2. Does it looks >> good? I'm not able to publish on the squeaksource repository > > This failed on the first Pharo image that I tried, which was a > Pharo-1.1-11400-rc2dev10.06.1 image. I think this is the subject > of some recent refactoring, so I'm not sure if it's safe to use > it yet (will somebody try to load OSProcess in one of the images > that has OSPlatform but that does not yet have the #platformName > refactoring?). > > I expect that there are several versions of Pharo in general > circulation, so can someone give me some guidance as to whether > it is safe to code for "OSPlatform current platformName" as the > expected idiom on Pharo, or should we wait a while and live with > the deprecation warnings? > > Thanks, > > Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
