[Pharo-dev] [ANN] Camp Smalltalk 2019 in Charlotte, NC

[Mariano Martinez Peck]

Greetings Fellow Smalltalkers,

We would like to invite you to Camp Smalltalk, March 29th – March 31st
2019 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Event details and registration
info are available at the following link: Camp Smalltalk Charlotte 2019

Hope to see you there!

-- 
Mariano

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1401: 22668-Contextual-menu-does-not-show-up-when-pressing-Ctrlleft-click-on-Pharo-7

[ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2]

There is a new Pharo build available!
  
The status of the build #1401 was: SUCCESS.

The Pull Request #1988 was integrated: 
"22668-Contextual-menu-does-not-show-up-when-pressing-Ctrlleft-click-on-Pharo-7"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1988

Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22668
Build Url: 
https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/development/1401/

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1400: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (postscriptum to the notes to the commentaries to the addendum)

[ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2]

There is a new Pharo build available!
  
The status of the build #1400 was: FAILURE.

The Pull Request #1994 was integrated: 
"22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (postscriptum to the 
notes to the commentaries to the addendum)"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1994

Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659
Build Url: 
https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/development/1400/

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [ANN] Pharo v7.0.0-rc1 released!

[Alistair Grant]

Hi Vitor,

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 14:37, Vitor Medina Cruz  wrote:
>
> Got instant red crossed welcome window on windows 7 64bits with the Pharo 7 
> 64 bits: "Error: Instances of SourceFileArray are not indexable". I will try 
> on a windows 10 version later.

Which VM are you using? (pharoconsole --version)

I've seen this just once on Ubuntu 16.04 (64 bit), but wasn't able to
reproduce it, and think it was a more recent VM than the current
stable version.

Thanks,
Alistair

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1399: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (notes to the commentary to the addendum)

[ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2]

There is a new Pharo build available!
  
The status of the build #1399 was: FAILURE.

The Pull Request #1993 was integrated: 
"22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (notes to the commentary 
to the addendum)"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1993

Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659
Build Url: 
https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/development/1399/

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1398: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (commentary to the addendum)

[ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2]

There is a new Pharo build available!
  
The status of the build #1398 was: FAILURE.

The Pull Request #1992 was integrated: 
"22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (commentary to the 
addendum)"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1992

Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659
Build Url: 
https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/development/1398/

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1396: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (addendum to the addendum)

[ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2]

There is a new Pharo build available!
  
The status of the build #1396 was: FAILURE.

The Pull Request #1991 was integrated: 
"22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (addendum to the 
addendum)"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1991

Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659
Build Url: 
https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/development/1396/

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1395: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (addendum)

[ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2]

There is a new Pharo build available!
  
The status of the build #1395 was: FAILURE.

The Pull Request #1990 was integrated: 
"22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (addendum)"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1990

Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659
Build Url: 
https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/development/1395/

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #1394: 22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (definitive compilation)

[ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2]

There is a new Pharo build available!
  
The status of the build #1394 was: FAILURE.

The Pull Request #1989 was integrated: 
"22659-generated-artifacts-should-have-the-version-tag (definitive compilation)"
Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1989

Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22659
Build Url: 
https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/development/1394/

Re: [Pharo-dev] Debugger "Through" acting like "Into"

[Guillermo Polito]

Hi Martin,

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 4:15 AM Martin McClure 
wrote:

> In the latest Pharo 7
> (Pharo-7.0.0+rc1.build.1384.sha.c34d6a69d9d01a2816df1f9fdc7388580163df29
> (32 Bit)) it seems like clicking "Through" in the debugger often (but
> not always) has the effect of "Into", which seems wrong and makes
> stepping through code difficult. I don't know how new this behavior is.
>
> Is this a known behavior? If not, I'll characterize it further.
>

Not that I know.
>From the top of my head, step through should work like a step over, unless
the execution flows into the block whose home = thisContext.
What is the behaviour you expect?

Just as a side note, we have a Phd student trying to understand the
semantics of our debugger operations and they are not always so evident.
We are trying to write tests for all these to "formalise" (:)) the
semantics and have a battery to detect regressions.

Guille