Levente A final word on this discussion. There is a difference between making sure that people cannot update and trying to make progress and sometimes facing problem. So this is not our goal that the update does not work but sometimes we could not do otherwise. We are sorry about that we are probably too stupid. Now do that on our free time. Stef
On Sep 9, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote: > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >>>> Why are you so aggressive against us? >>> >>> I didn't mean to be aggressive, I just don't think your idea will work well. >> >> we will see. >> >>>> Now if you want status quo why do you even commit in squeak? >>> >>> I'm not against changes. >> >> So I did not understand. Probably my english. > > I like to keep stuff backwards compatible as long as it doesn't "cost" too > much do it. And I like when my old code works with none or minimal changes in > newer systems. > >> >>>> Pharo1.0 is not abandoned at all. Since 1.0 we got more than 1000 bugs >>>> closed. >>>> The versions are just a way to have milestones. Now there is no problem >>>> you think otherwise >>> >>> So if I have a Pharo 1.0 image with my code and I don't want to rebuild the >>> image, then how can I update it to 1.1? >> >> - first I cannot reload code for you. >> - second you can simply look at Utilities and find the right invocation to >> get the next update >> stream. >> >> Something like that >> Utilities readServer: Utilities serverUrls updatesThrough: nil >> saveLocally: true updateImage: true. >> But you should set the version to 1.1. >> >> I'm sure that you can easily find how to do it. > > I tried this in a PharoCore 1.0 image: > > ScriptLoader currentMajorVersionNumber: 1.1. > SystemVersion current version: 'PharoCore1.1ALPHA'. > Utilities readServerUpdatesThrough: nil saveLocally: false updateImage: true. > > But the image freezes (not interruptable by Alt+. (or Cmd+.)). > >> >> Of course in 1.2 this is way nicer >> UpdateStreamer new beVerbose; updateFromServer >> >> Then there are changes like closures that requires a brand new image so you >> cannot >> bash us if you cannot reload you code in another image. > > Um no. We have several images which were updated from Squeak 3.10 to the > current Squeak 4.2 trunk. > > > Levente > >> Moose people have a lot of packages with a lot of dependencies and code and >> they moved from 1.0 to 1.1 >> without any real problem. Probably a couple of deprecated messages. >> >> Stef >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
