BTW we discussed about it yesterday and I proposed that we keep the FileDirectory package for compatibility even if we are in 2.0. Dale I imagine that it would solve your problem. Stef
On Aug 4, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > Dale > > Can we use an old version of Metacello that we maintain? > Then we migrate when needed and this is ok. > > Stef > > >> | > What I'd _like_ to do for Metacello and Pharo-2.0 is to make the >> | > changes against the MetacelloPreview release, which I'm managing >> | > on github. >> | > >> | > The MetacelloPreview is aimed at an eventual 1.0 release of >> | > Metacello (hopefully in the fall). >> | > >> | > I would _like_ Metacello-Base to be included in the Pharo-2.0 base >> | > image, the sooner the better and I'm poised to pull the trigger on >> | > that, but the recent changes have crippled FileTree ... >> | > >> | yeah.. we talking about it all the time "how good it would be to have >> | metacello preloaded in image" :) >> | >> | > So until FileTree is functional again, I can't really do anything >> | > with Pharo-2.0... >> | > >> | > Hacking Metacello to get it running on Pharo-2.0 doesn't help _me_ >> | > move forward. >> | > >> | >> | You can tell how they could help, so they will (if they will still >> | want), leaving less work for you :) Of course, if you need help or >> | can >> | see where it can be useful. >> | But i know it is hard to coordinate & organize activities.. sometimes >> | harder than doing everything alone. :) >> >> The bigger problem is that I have to have a code base that runs on multiple >> platforms while being maintainable, so a "port" to Pharo-2.0 is only a >> starting point. In the case of FileTree, which is the real bottleneck >> there's a lot code that is written against the FileDirectory API, so there >> will need to be significant work to find a way to keep a common code base >> .... a much tougher problem, than "just getting it working", it can be >> solved with time, but I didn't budget time for an emergency rewrite of >> FileTree ... today. >> >> | >> | > It is likely that I will have to redo whatever hacks that are done >> | > to get it running on Pharo-2.0 to be compatible with the rest of >> | > platforms that I am supporting and doing it right takes a little >> | > more effort ... >> | > >> | yes.. it is hard to keep up with moving target.. But i hope this is >> | for good of us all (FileSystem ,as to me, is no doubt much better >> | comparing to what we had before). >> >> Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with the overall goals ... I actually think >> that renaming FileDirectory to ObsoleteFileDirectory (and keeping the >> implementation) would be a good compromise ... I can easily switch class >> names for the short term which then buys me time for doing a proper rewrite >> ... >> >> | >> | > So if you are just going to hack around to get things running on >> | > Pharo-2.0 I guess I would have to say that I don't care what you >> | > do, because the hacks don't make my job any easier. >> | > >> | > Dale >> | > >> | >> | -- >> | Best regards, >> | Igor Stasenko. >> | _______________________________________________ >> | seaside mailing list >> | [email protected] >> | http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> | >> > >
