Craig,
thank you. +1000
> On Jan 11, 2019, at 12:58 AM, 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
> +31 6 2757 7177 (SMS ok)
> + 1 415 287 3547 (no SMS)
>
