I'm simply saying that we have a problem. When I first saw the config browser, I had hoped that it would bring the problem to light and spur a fix. As it is now, there are too many quirks and caveats for the browser to have any meaning beyond a few well-behaved items.
________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 2:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I know it's not a popular opinion, but overall, they don't work. It is so bad that any effort on my part to fix one here or there would simply be sticking a finger in a collapsing Hoover dam. "Yelling in general" is a mis-characterization of my apparently being the only person willing to characterize the emperor's new clothes. There are wide-spread problems. Either the configs need to be fixed, or we need a common location for the latest incantation that is thought to work with a given version of Pharo. But then you have the same problem if people commit packages that do not work. :S Providing working versions and tagging them, right now is a people problem, not a tool problem. And the same happens with python, java, javascript, .net, ruby, the OS software... I don't know how else to put it. ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:37 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It's nice that there are examples that work, but the vast majority of configs are not so well organized. I'm not the mantainer of the majority of configs so I do not know. What I explained before is how they are supposed to work and be managed. If the person who mantains the config does not ensure you that, It's not the problem of the configuration :). Now, if there are configs not working as expected, it would be good to: - know them - tell the mantainers - try to fix one? - not yelling in general because that does not work :S. >From my side, this week I fixed the configurations of: - Glamour - OpenDBXDriver - Glorp + GlorpDBX - ScriptManager so they can load in latest 1.4. But I can't be everywhere yet :P. Also, 1.4 is has just been released, so I expect most users are moving their stuff soon. Cheers, Guille ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Guillermo Polito [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:26 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? I meant: Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus. Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside. Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image. :P On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Guillermo Polito <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Wat? Probably there was a misunderstood... 1) if you are an user of the project, stable should be enough and fine. 2) if your project is coupled to the project, probably you are coupled to an specific version. Thus, in your configuration you better put the specific number :). 3) if your project is not coupled to the project, just inteded to load it, using stable should be enough and fine. Example of 1) is you loading OmniBrowser or Nautilus. Example of 2) is your project using a specific version of XmlSupport or seaside. Example of 3) is the ImageBuilder of Mariano, which loads a lot of stuff to build a Development image. Guille On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary instructions over time? ________________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Camillo Bruni [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:40 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? On 2012-04-27, at 01:17, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: > Can they really download stuff? How much? Until the configurations are > truly self-describing and "know" what to use for which version of Pharo[*], > the Config Browser is really (sorry guys) a very clear illustration of what > we have yet to do in the way of packaging. > > Bill > > [*] there needs to be one incantation that works to load everything, > something like #loadStable. Then a config browser can work as advertised, > and I fear, not until. Prove me wrong :) seems like you missed something (Metacello Configurations)? it's done like this in st-code: ConfigurationOfXYZ project load: #stable > ________________________________________ > From: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] > on behalf of Stéphane Ducasse > [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:17 PM > To: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser > more visible? > > Ok for me. > Package Maps Loader > > Stef > >> What about naming it "Package Loader" or "Package center" or something like >> that? >> And putting it in the main menu instead of inside of Tools? >> >> I want people who open pharo for the first time to say "Hey, here I can >> download stuff!!!" >> >> Guille
