Goubier Thierry wrote
Le 06/09/2013 14:13, Marcus Denker a écrit :
So you want more change in 2.0? You can have that, but you need to
accept instability. There is no way to have both more changes and more
stability.
I'm OK for that. 3.0 is just plainly too unstable, and this is the way
Le 05/09/2013 22:04, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
Who says that? We always said that we will back-port all imported fixes to 2.0.
We will not back-port *everything*, especially
not improvements that are not fixes, because then there would be no difference
between Pharo3 and Pharo2 (and
On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
Le 05/09/2013 22:04, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
Who says that? We always said that we will back-port all imported fixes to
2.0. We will not back-port *everything*, especially
not improvements that are not
Le 06/09/2013 14:13, Marcus Denker a écrit :
So you want more change in 2.0? You can have that, but you need to accept
instability. There is no way to have both more changes and more stability.
I'm OK for that. 3.0 is just plainly too unstable, and this is the way
it should be. But 2.0
On 09/05/2013 05:01 AM, David T. Lewis wrote:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:38:04AM +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
Why do you need to support Squeak 3.8? This is how many years old?
I really do not understand this idea to be compatible to all old versions ever.
I do not think that there is any
Thanks.
I have merged -dtl.33 and two more change in
OSProcess-Base-ThierryGoubier.35 on
http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/ThierryGoubier/Alt30/main/ (osVersion and
vmVersion), if you want to merge them as well.
I have a question: are you sure about the perform: #delete in OSProcess
Le 05/09/2013 14:19, David T. Lewis a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 11:18:27AM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Thanks.
I have merged -dtl.33 and two more change in
OSProcess-Base-ThierryGoubier.35 on
http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/ThierryGoubier/Alt30/main/ (osVersion and
vmVersion), if you want
Who says that? We always said that we will back-port all imported fixes to
2.0. We will not back-port *everything*, especially
not improvements that are not fixes, because then there would be no
difference between Pharo3 and Pharo2 (and these
tend to introduce new problems, making it
No. Just admit that you have productions 1.4 (and maybe 1.3) hanging around,
that 2.0 is the main development platform for Pharo users, 3.0 is where you
make interesting stuff.
Yes we admit it and then?
We are concerned to help people.
Did you run the rules generated from
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 03:31:06PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 05/09/2013 14:19, David T. Lewis a ?crit :
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 11:18:27AM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Thanks.
I have merged -dtl.33 and two more change in
OSProcess-Base-ThierryGoubier.35 on
I am also checking the platform subtype implementation (OSProcess
platformSubtype).
In Pharo:
Smalltalk os subtype == 'i686'
This reflects the processor type, not the os subtype (it should be 'x86_64'
on my PC).
Is this intentional?
I don't think so.
Marcus
Le 03/09/2013 21:04, Camillo Bruni a écrit :
On 2013-09-03, at 09:36, Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
And I would probably have to come and try to maintain your fork because you
wouldn't be using it and let it be deprecated for pharo 4 or 5...
exactly, and for each Pharo
Le 04/09/2013 08:38, Marcus Denker a écrit :
On Sep 4, 2013, at 4:52 AM, David T. Lewis le...@mail.msen.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:48:46PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 03/09/2013 13:36, David T. Lewis a ?crit :
Can you post the method here first? I'd like to check it on
Why do you need to support Squeak 3.8? This is how many years old?
I really do not understand this idea to be compatible to all old versions
ever.
I respect whatever approach is used to make a usefull set of software
portable across multiple versions / implementations / OS, as long
Le 04/09/2013 09:40, Marcus Denker a écrit :
Why do you need to support Squeak 3.8? This is how many years old?
I really do not understand this idea to be compatible to all old versions ever.
I respect whatever approach is used to make a usefull set of software portable
across multiple
On Sep 4, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
Le 04/09/2013 09:40, Marcus Denker a écrit :
Why do you need to support Squeak 3.8? This is how many years old?
I really do not understand this idea to be compatible to all old versions
ever.
I respect
Le 04/09/2013 10:06, Marcus Denker a écrit :
On Sep 4, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
Le 04/09/2013 09:40, Marcus Denker a écrit :
Why do you need to support Squeak 3.8? This is how many years old?
I really do not understand this idea to be
On Sep 4, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
But it is clear that this is a fine line: one persons fix is the others
persons bug, so we tend to be conservative.
But nevertheless, all show-stopping bugs should be fixed.
In general: It is *a lot* of work,
Le 04/09/2013 11:27, Marcus Denker a écrit :
On Sep 4, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
But it is clear that this is a fine line: one persons fix is the others persons
bug, so we tend to be conservative.
But nevertheless, all show-stopping bugs should be
I don't understand where the tragedy is..
you want your production code to work in Pharo 2.0?
Write it to work well in 2.0, don't care about 3.0 or any other future
possible changes.
Want your code to work on bleeding-edge 3.0 image?
Refactor/do the changes to make it work.. leave 2.0 behind.
You
Le 04/09/2013 11:52, Igor Stasenko a écrit :
I don't understand where the tragedy is..
you want your production code to work in Pharo 2.0?
Write it to work well in 2.0, don't care about 3.0 or any other future
possible changes.
Want your code to work on bleeding-edge 3.0 image?
Refactor/do the
Thanks Henry for the correction. Should I prepare an OSProcess version
with all the changes necessary for Pharo3 ?
Thierry
Le 04/09/2013 04:51, David T. Lewis a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:48:46PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 03/09/2013 13:36, David T. Lewis a ?crit :
Can you
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:51:33PM -0400, David T. Lewis wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:48:46PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 03/09/2013 13:36, David T. Lewis a ?crit :
Can you post the method here first? I'd like to check it on some Squeak
images
before it goes into the
On Sep 4, 2013, at 2:13 PM, David T. Lewis le...@mail.msen.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:51:33PM -0400, David T. Lewis wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:48:46PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 03/09/2013 13:36, David T. Lewis a ?crit :
Can you post the method here first? I'd
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 02:17:29PM +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Sep 4, 2013, at 2:13 PM, David T. Lewis le...@mail.msen.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:51:33PM -0400, David T. Lewis wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:48:46PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 03/09/2013 13:36,
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:38:04AM +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
Why do you need to support Squeak 3.8? This is how many years old?
I really do not understand this idea to be compatible to all old versions
ever.
I do not think that there is any right or wrong answer to this, it is
perhaps
Le 03/09/2013 10:28, Henrik Johansen a écrit :
On Sep 2, 2013, at 4:41 , Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
Le 02/09/2013 16:07, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
what we could do is to not deprecate now the methods?
Then we can deprecate them when we release 3.0
When starting
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:58:07AM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
At the same time, parts of OSProcess seems to not be working under
Pharo2 anyway :( I don't even think I'm able to run the tests (locked up
my 3.0 image it did).
My last set of updates to OSProcess for Pharo were done in
Le 03/09/2013 12:56, David T. Lewis a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:58:07AM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
At the same time, parts of OSProcess seems to not be working under
Pharo2 anyway :( I don't even think I'm able to run the tests (locked up
my 3.0 image it did).
My last set of
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:15:01PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 03/09/2013 12:56, David T. Lewis a ?crit :
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:58:07AM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
At the same time, parts of OSProcess seems to not be working under
Pharo2 anyway :( I don't even think I'm able
Le 03/09/2013 13:36, David T. Lewis a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:15:01PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 03/09/2013 12:56, David T. Lewis a ?crit :
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:58:07AM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
At the same time, parts of OSProcess seems to not be working under
bah... I would just go for maintaining a fork of OSProcess with simple
rewriters for these methods and backporting fixes from the main repository.
I think all-in-one solutions only result in bad code..
On 2013-09-03, at 08:48, Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
Le 03/09/2013 13:36,
And I would probably have to come and try to maintain your fork because
you wouldn't be using it and let it be deprecated for pharo 4 or 5...
:)
Thierry
Le 03/09/2013 14:22, Camillo Bruni a écrit :
bah... I would just go for maintaining a fork of OSProcess with simple
rewriters for these
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:48:46PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 03/09/2013 13:36, David T. Lewis a ?crit :
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:15:01PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
I'm attempting something. Is is OK if I save in the OSProcess
squeaksource repository?
Thierry
Can you post
On 2013-09-03, at 09:36, Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
And I would probably have to come and try to maintain your fork because you
wouldn't be using it and let it be deprecated for pharo 4 or 5...
exactly, and for each Pharo version there is a different branch of OSProcess.
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:48:46PM +0200, Goubier Thierry wrote:
Le 03/09/2013 13:36, David T. Lewis a ?crit :
Can you post the method here first? I'd like to check it on some Squeak
images
before it goes into the repository.
Here it is (at least an example):
in OSProcess class
Hi,
sometimes during the summer, a method used by OSProcess to determine the
OS Platform has been deprecated in Pharo 3.0. Is it possible to have a
look into updating OSProcess?
I'm still unable to use Pharo3.0 because of issue 11102, but I'd like to
get gitfiletree to work on it, and I
Le 02/09/2013 12:02, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
ok I read the big thread and what would be a solution?
Updating OSProcess?
It's just that the code which does the platform selection is already
quite interesting due to platform differences, and I'm not sure how I
should update it for
Stef,
a question then: how to check that I am on a pharo3 image which is newer
than 2013-07-22 (since this is the date where the OSPlatform methods
have been deprecated) ?
If I write something like
(Smalltalk version beginsWith: 'Pharo3')
ifTrue: [ ^ Smalltalk os
what we could do is to not deprecate now the methods?
Then we can deprecate them when we release 3.0
Stef
On Sep 2, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
Stef,
a question then: how to check that I am on a pharo3 image which is newer than
2013-07-22 (since this
Le 02/09/2013 16:07, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
what we could do is to not deprecate now the methods?
Then we can deprecate them when we release 3.0
When starting pharo4? That would be perfect :)
I just noticed that Smalltalk os exist in 1.4 and 2.0. So my code should
work on an old image,
On 2 September 2013 16:41, Goubier Thierry thierry.goub...@cea.fr wrote:
Le 02/09/2013 16:07, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
what we could do is to not deprecate now the methods?
Then we can deprecate them when we release 3.0
When starting pharo4? That would be perfect :)
I just noticed
On 2013-09-02, at 11:07, Stéphane Ducasse stephane.duca...@inria.fr wrote:
what we could do is to not deprecate now the methods?
Then we can deprecate them when we release 3.0
I would say the exact opposite, deprecate methods as early as possible
If I deprecate a method now,
- it is
43 matches
Mail list logo
