Then perfect!
> On 11 Jan 2019, at 09:58, Craig Latta <cr...@blackpagedigital.com> wrote: > > > Hi all-- > > Eliot writes: > >> Do you want to remove the method simply because there are no senders >> in the image? >> >> If so, this is indicative of a serious problem with the Pharo >> development process. In the summer I ported VMMaker.oscog to Pharo 6. >> Now as feenk try and build a VMMaker.oscog image on Pharo 7, the >> system is broken, in part because of depreciations and in part because >> useful methods (isOptimisedBlock (isOptimizedBlock?) in the Opal >> compiler) have been removed. >> >> Just because a method is not in the image does not imply it is not in >> use. It simply means that it is not in use in the base image. As the >> system gets modularised this issue will only increase. There are lots >> of collection methods that exist as a library that are not used in the >> base image and removing them would clearly damage the library for >> users. This is the case for lots of so-called system code. There are >> users out there, like those of us in the vm team, who rely on such >> system code, and it is extremely unsettling and frustrating to have >> that system code change all the time. If Pharo is to be a useful >> platform to the vm team it has to be more stable. > > Esteban responds: > >> ...we are told that we remove things without caring. > > I don't see where Eliot said anyone didn't care. > > Stef responds: > >> About the method removed, could you please react less negatively? It >> would be nice. >> >> ... >> >> How much time opening a bug entry can take? Under 1 min I guess. So >> why if marcus removed it inadvertly would you want to make him feel >> bad? > > Eliot said the system has to be more stable. It doesn't seem like a > negative reaction, or an attempt to make anyone feel bad. As Ben pointed > out, the major cost of reporting regressions isn't the time spent > interacting with the bug-tracking system, it's being switched away from > what you were doing. Using the automated regression-testing system seems > like a good way of catching this particular issue (even though it's a > step away from having full live traceability all the time, before > committing changes). > >> For calypso we try and sometimes fail and retry. But we do not rant... >> The solution is also to have ***********positive********* >> communication... There is no point to piss on our process... So before >> bashing us I would expect a bit of respect that it is due to our track >> record... it would be nice if you could refrain to be systematically >> negative about what we are doing. > > I don't think Eliot is being systematically negative, or that he > was ranting, pissing, or bashing. I think introducing those accusatory > words into the conversation detracts from positive communication. > >> I think that we are doing a great job make Smalltalk cool. > > I do, too! (And thanks for using that word. ;) > > > thanks, > > -C > > -- > Craig Latta > Black Page Digital > Amsterdam :: San Francisco > cr...@blackpagedigital.com <mailto:cr...@blackpagedigital.com> > +31 6 2757 7177 (SMS ok) > + 1 415 287 3547 (no SMS)
