+1
El mié, 27-04-2011 a las 13:27 +0200, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió: > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Michael Forster <[email protected]> > wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Marcus Denker > <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > > Yes, using the old version of Pharo that you used when > > you implemented them. > > Like MacOS 9 programs run on MacOS 9. > > > > If you want to run your MacOS 9 Program on MacOSX, there > > is for a time an emulator, and for a time some source > compatibility. > > But in the end, the only option is to port. > > > > There is no magic. > > > > You can select between > > > > -> Inventing the Future > > -> Be compatible to the Past at any cost. > > > > If what you have in the Past is valuable, selecting the > second option > > makes sense. (IBM, Microsoft). If not, then it's idiotic. > > > > We will improve this a bit in the future, but this is > research, so no promises. > > > > So, we mission-critical users should probably disregard the > mission > statement on the web page misleading: > > "... By providing a stable and small core system, excellent > dev > tools, and maintained releases, Pharo is an attractive > platform > to build and deploy mission critical Smalltalk > applications." > > > It doesn't say anything about backward compatibility. > As marcus said, we want a stable system. That means it is stable. Few > bugs, robust, etc. If you use that system for the next 5 years, it > will continue to be stable. > You understood stable in the sense that it won't change among > releases? if so, yes, the text is misleading and we need to fix it. > > I'm sorry that I don't have time right at the moment to > address this > properly, because I do respect the efforts of the Pharo > developers, I > fully appreciate the challenges of a FOSS project, and I like > some of > the results I've seen (very nice developer UI features, > movement > towards announcements, the collaboractive book, and so on). I > am > interested, only, in offering constructive criticism, so > please don't > mistake my tone. > > Please, go ahead. And don't mistake my tone neither. I am just nicely > discussing :) > > > The short version of my concern is this: As a "mission > critical" user > of Pharo, I will trade backward compatibility for improvement, > if, as > you say, you provide "maintained releases". Those last two > words are > the most important and incur a great burden of > responsibility. I > don't think the Pharo project has fully considered the > responsibility > of using those two words. > > We did Pharo 1.1.1 and we are planning Pharo 1.2.2. And they are > "maintained releases". Of course, don't expect now for example, a > maintained release in Pharo 1.0. > At least not from me. This is open-source. Nobody pays. Resources are > limited. So...if you need something in Pharo.1.0 NOW, you take the > image and you integrate the fix by yourself. > Or you can kindly ask. Crucial bugs are always included and > integrated. > > > The short version of my recommendation is this: Have a look > at the > FreeBSD release engineering process. > > how many developers are working in FreeBSD? how much money they > receive? > It is not that we do this because we want. Resources are limited and > we need to use where we think they are used better. > > They break backward > compatibility all the time, but, if I have a mission critical > application running on 4.5, I will still get essential bug and > security fixes for a few years, and I can run trials with 8.0 > on my > other servers. > > If people ask us, we are not going to do a new release for Pharo 1.0. > However, if someone comes and say, "hey, please, can you consider > create a Pharo 1.0.XX with the fixed issues A B C F R". > Sure we can do it. What you should not expect is: > > - new developments to be included in old version > - non critical bugs to be included in old versions > - that you won't have to change anything in your apps in order to > upgrade to a new pharo version > > Moreover, they have an updated documented roadmap that > I can look at to determine that I should continue to run 4.5 > on that > one box while testing 8.0 on the others. > > > We don't need to exaggerate. Pharo position about this topic was from > the VERY beginning. In fact, it was created just because of that. > Now...it is already like 3 years and 3 big releases. I am not aware > of someone who needs to migrate and couldn't. So...it is working fine > for the moment. > > > > > Best regards, > > Mike > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > -- Miguel Cobá http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
