Stef, That would be fine with me ...
That would buy time for me to come up with a port to 2.0 that satisfies my need for portability and allows you guys to keep forging ahead without being dragged back by me:) Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Stéphane Ducasse" <[email protected]> | To: [email protected] | Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 11:54:24 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [Seaside] Re: [Metacello] What is the plan with Pharo changes? | | 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 | > | | > | | |
