Hi, On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Torsten Bergmann <asta...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Tudor wrote: > >Indeed. This was a discussion I wanted to spawn as well. I would prefer > to change the name from Workspace to Playground in the World Menu. The > reason is >that the Playground is such a distinct departure from the > Workspace that it deserves a different name. > > I do not think it is a departure from the Workspace concept. > > Therefore I would keep "Workspace" for the menu item name and the window > name. It would be enough if the initial > tab is called "Playground" because one can play in the code pane (or do > serious stuff). > I disagree. Workspace has a very specific meaning in the way it is being used, and this is now obsolete. > This way we would keep up with a known concept (also from other IDE's) You mean like the Playground in Swift (btw, we named it playground before Swift appeared)? :) The philosophy of the name is to support the idea that in Pharo we play with objects, and play with do in a Playground. But, we can still find another name if wanted, just not workspace. For example, it can be something about starting, or entering a space. I would also prefer having something that ends with an "er" or "or" like the Inspector or Debugger. it meets what people would expect and > no books would have to be rewritten ;) > I disagree again. Books will actually have to rewritten :) BTW: Squeak had a goodie with something similar back in the days (cant > remember the name). It was neat as one > could assemble different objects and different object representations > in one navigateable window. That is great to hear. Was it the work of Marcel Taeumel on Vivide ( http://www.taeumel.eu), or something else? Only, the Playground is not just windows stacked to one another, it's a whole session that can be reasoned about. >>I would suggest to use the well known order "Cut","Copy","Paste". > >Thanks for noticing. This will be fixed. > > Thanks! > > >Indeed, we had a debate about the name. I proposed the solution 3b you > mention, but it was decided > >that it would be too confusing to change the Cmd+i action at this time, > and we chose "Go" to be > >the name of the action that is mapped on Cmd+g. > > Here we agree - I would have choosen 3b as well. Decided by whom? Did I > miss the discussion in the > list or was it offlist? > You missed the discussion. It was on this list, but we can start it again. Could you open another thread? >>...icons... > >This is a known issue and we will look at it soon. > > Sounds good. > > >At the moment, GT is an external project and the contributions should > happen directly in its repository. > > Then please add me to the repo. Still the process is unclear - will I > still provide a slice with > issue number or will I change the config. > At the moment, we are taking an optimistic approach to committing, so you can commit directly in the GT repository. You can also commit either in your own repository and send us a ping. Because of the optimistic approach, it is better to have a discussion beforehand, either through an issue or via the mailing list. When we are all happy (it can be that a change is reverted), we create a new stable version that afterwards has to be integrated into Pharo. I believe that after a while, we should eliminate the last step and have Pharo integrate the latest stable, but we need a transition period. It is not very lucky that this process was started (without > discussion/announcement/description first > and only for specific packages). > Again, you missed this discussion. Btw, this is how Zinc was handled since quite a long time, and we want to move Pharo to be handled via configurations in separate repositories from now on. This is a way to scale the effort by not making the central team responsible for everything. Cheers, Doru > Thx > T. > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
