I changed that but i still have the warning from quality assistant. On 23 April 2015 at 12:44, Cyril Ferlicot <cyril.ferli...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, ok ! Thank you Guillermo ! > > On 23 April 2015 at 11:58, Guillermo Polito <guillermopol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Cyril, >> >> Your problem is caused because abstract methods should be marked with >> "subclassResponsibility" and not "shouldBeImplemented". >> >> - shouldBeImplemented means "this is a method I did not implement yet, I >> should replace *this* method with another implementation" >> - subclassResponsibility means "my subclasses should implement a method with >> this same selector" >> >> The tools recognize the first as a normal "concrete" method and the second >> as an abstract method. >> >> El jue., 23 de abr. de 2015 a la(s) 10:15 a. m., Norbert Hartl >> <norb...@hartl.name> escribió: >>> >>> Stef, >>> >>> where is "the tool"? >>> >>> Norbert >>> >>> > Am 23.04.2015 um 08:01 schrieb stepharo <steph...@free.fr>: >>> > >>> > Two things: >>> > >>> > One: >>> > We paid a guy to work on a tool to help us identifying dependencies, The >>> > tool works well is fast. >>> > if this tool would be in the image, everybody could check that there are >>> > bad dependencies in his >>> > code (and there are many around in nearly anybody's code). >>> > No we prefer that me, pavel, and guille run it and fight with this >>> > instead of making sure that >>> > when you commit we get some feedback like: "oh strange that this package >>> > is bound with this one". >>> > This tool breaks when we do change in the image and I nicely (stupidly I >>> > would say) maintain it. >>> > >>> > Two: >>> > Our process is not great to manage external packages and we will add >>> > more. >>> > Sure it sounds like the right things to do, especially now. >>> > >>> > So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about >>> > modularity. >>> > >>> > But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give >>> > me good indication >>> > that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think >>> > that I'm emotional >>> > I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. >>> > >>> > Stef >>> > >>> > Le 22/4/15 21:27, Marcus Denker a écrit : >>> >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit : >>> >>>> this is so good. >>> >>>> what about integrate it to Pharo? >>> >>> No. People should start to think modular. >>> >>> No more external tools loaded by default. >>> >>> Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the >>> >>> configurationBrowser. >>> >>> >>> >>> Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show >>> >>> to people >>> >>> when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason. >>> >>> >>> >> But the Pharo that we download should be the Pharo we use. >>> >> >>> >> We tried the other back in Pharo1.0: Do you remember how we fixed with >>> >> lots >>> >> care all details, but then, everyone was using a different image, and >>> >> all the >>> >> details there where not fixed and all work was done double? >>> >> >>> >> If we do not make the Pharo that is downloaded to be that was is used, >>> >> we will have >>> >> that again. >>> >> >>> >> I don’t want everything in the image, but what everyone is supposed to >>> >> be using should >>> >> be there without needing an additional step. >>> >> >>> >> Marcus >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Cheers > Cyril Ferlicot
-- Cheers Cyril Ferlicot
