Levente What do you want to prove? We pushed/supported squeak since 3.5 or even before. So what? We were harvesters of bug fixes long long long long time ago. We started to clean squeak years ago. Do you want me to come up with a similar timeline from our effort? I do not have that amount of time to lose. We wrote most of the books and tutorial on Squeak. We built the squeakfoundation too btw :) and we give you all that effort for free. People think that going pharo was an easy choice, this was not. May be you do not believe that this is a lot but it is.
Now please please nobody has to gain anything polluting the good energy we are creating. You are free to believe what you want. We are free to do the way we want it. Levente we did pharo just to avoid arguing and get bad feelings. so keep this place nice friendly and welcoming. Stef PS: I can send you private mail to show you some evidence of the fact that our efforts to improve Squeak got attacked by 'Important' squeaker. >>> a) removing unessential code from Squeak (Squeak, having started as a >>> children.s education project, has accumulated a fair amount of cruft over >>> the years), >>> b) clearer licensing (MIT license), >>> c) more frequent updates (think Ubuntu versus Debian), and >>> d) being a reference implementation for the Seaside platform (perfect, >>> exactly what I need it for)." >>> >>> b) and c) are clearly false. a) ignores the fact that you can unload quite >>> a lot of "cruft" from Squeak making it comparable to Pharo-Core. >> >> I might be wrong, and I known that Squeak has been changing lately, but >> Pharo seems to have been the driver here, putting these issues on the map. > > The modularization of Squeak is an old idea (a). One such effort is Pavel's > KernelImage project which dates back to 2006: > http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1873 > > The idea of relicensing Squeak (b) dates back to 2003 or earlier. Apple > relicensed the original Squeak code in 2006 under the Apache license. AFAIK > the MITification process started in 2006 or 2007: > http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SqueakRelicensePush. According to wikipedia the > driving force was adding EToys to OLPC. > > I think that in case of the update frequency (c) Squeak was the driving > force. Why? Let's see the timeline: > > 21 March 2008: Squeak 3.10 released > 21 May 2008: Pharo forked Squeak 3.9 (the date may not be exact) > 30 May 2008: First Pharo snapshot uploaded to gforge > 02 July 2009: Squeak's new developement process announced (aka 3.11 > developement cancelled) > 31 July 2009: Pharo 1.0 Beta announced > 16 March 2010: Squeak 4.0 comes out (same as Squeak 3.10, but with MIT > license) > 29 March 2010: Squeak 4.1 feature freeze announced > 16 April 2010: Pharo 1.0 released > 26 April 2010: Squeak 4.1 released (the first artifact of the new process) > 16 May 2010: Pharo 1.1 Beta announced > 26 July 2010: Pharo 1.1 released > 08 December 2010: Pharo 1.2 Beta announced > 13 December 2010: Squeak 4.2 feature freeze announced > > Pharo's developement cycle restarts after a beta. Squeak's developement cycle > restarts after the release. So: > > Artifact DW RW WSPR > ------------------------------------ > Pharo 1.0 62 99 N/A > Pharo 1.1 41 47 14 > Pharo 1.2 29 >31 >21 > Squeak 4.1 38 42 5 but irrelevant > Squeak 4.2 33 >34 >34 > > DW = Developement weeks (number of weeks between cycle restart and feature > freeze/beta) > RW = Release weeks (number of weeks between cycle restart and release) > WSPR = Weeks since previous release (number of weeks between releases) > > What I wanted to show is that the release of Pharo 1.0 was not urgent at all > (DW and RW are both _more than a year_) until Squeak 4.1 came out. After the > release of Squeak 4.1, Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 was released ASAP. > > So yes, I think you're wrong, just like Dmitri. > > > Levente > >> >> Sven >> >> >> >
