Chris Muller <asquea...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Earlier, we’ve seen projects like Magma being overwhelmed by the number of >> needed changes, > > I'm curious what you meant by this. I'm not aware of Magma ever > having been overwhelmed. Its design has made it easy to be one of the > most-available and consumable pieces of software for every version of > Squeak from 2007 to today. Did you mean the Pharo port? It doesn't > really do any magic, I'd be surprised if it would be very difficult to > port to Pharo, but I don't know.
Several people have been working on a Magma version for Pharo. At the time (Pharo 1.0-1.2) the Pharo CI infrastructure was not giving enough feedback to keep the port running. Once a year or so someone comes along who tries fixing the port, and that appears to be too difficult or time consuming for them. It needs pretty deep knowledge about internals. I agree that it would probably not be very difficult for a long time pharo/squeak developer. Finding out what exactly changed and why in the past 8 years is not so easy for someone new. Without someone using it in production on Pharo, there is not enough incentive to keep up with what changes in Pharo. There’s a chicken and egg problem there Stephan
