Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
Le 22/11/2012 12:10, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit : do you have slides of your lectures? No. I did an on the fly explanation of the implementation of that model in Smalltalk: http://compilation.gforge.inria.fr/2012_06_Rennes/talks.html#thierry (With just enough Smalltalk to let non-smalltalkers write a bit of code : 30'). I'll try to make the code and the examples available. Thierry Stef I've used Pharo 2.0 for teaching on Monday/Tuesday. Apart from a few bugs here and there, it worked fine (but the bugs were rather annoying to explain to Smalltalk beginners). 2.0 was shaky. I would have used 1.4 for newbies It worked well enough to teach process network programming with it... At the same time, my production development is on 1.4. So I think it could/should go beta soon. I'd be happy if I know some of the core packages won't change under me :) We will. I want to really stabilize now. +1 Thierry -- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95 -- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
do you have slides of your lectures? Stef >>> I've used Pharo 2.0 for teaching on Monday/Tuesday. Apart from a few bugs >>> here and there, it worked fine (but the bugs were rather annoying to >>> explain to Smalltalk beginners). >> >> 2.0 was shaky. I would have used 1.4 for newbies > > It worked well enough to teach process network programming with it... > >>> At the same time, my production development is on 1.4. >>> >>> So I think it could/should go beta soon. I'd be happy if I know some of the >>> core packages won't change under me :) >> >> We will. I want to really stabilize now. > > +1 > > Thierry > -- > Thierry Goubier > CEA list > Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués > 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex > France > Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95 >
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
Le 22/11/2012 10:46, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit : On Nov 22, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Goubier Thierry wrote: I've used Pharo 2.0 for teaching on Monday/Tuesday. Apart from a few bugs here and there, it worked fine (but the bugs were rather annoying to explain to Smalltalk beginners). 2.0 was shaky. I would have used 1.4 for newbies It worked well enough to teach process network programming with it... At the same time, my production development is on 1.4. So I think it could/should go beta soon. I'd be happy if I know some of the core packages won't change under me :) We will. I want to really stabilize now. +1 Thierry -- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
On Nov 22, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Goubier Thierry wrote: > I've used Pharo 2.0 for teaching on Monday/Tuesday. Apart from a few bugs > here and there, it worked fine (but the bugs were rather annoying to explain > to Smalltalk beginners). 2.0 was shaky. I would have used 1.4 for newbies > At the same time, my production development is on 1.4. > > So I think it could/should go beta soon. I'd be happy if I know some of the > core packages won't change under me :) We will. I want to really stabilize now. Stef > > Thierry > > Le 22/11/2012 08:17, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit : >> sounds good to me. >> Esteban we should do a list of points to fix. >> - Nautilus with trees :) >> - default shortcuts >> - fix criticbrowser (I'm working on it). >> - >> - >> >> Stef >> >>> my proposal so far is: >>> >>> - prepare the vms as "NB ready" (I was planning to work on that next week, >>> using the new infraestructure) >>> - include NB as "ready to use" >>> - include Opal as "preview" >>> >>> No more integrations for 2.0. >>> We will be able to load Athens (since VMs and image will be prepared) with >>> just a simple Metacello configuration. I don't know if including it as >>> "preview" (like opal) Igor, what do you think? >>> >>> I need all next week to prepare that (with Marcus assistance, of course >>> :P)... >>> >>> Are we ok with that? >>> >>> Esteban >>> >>> ps: If we don't go to beta next week will be really difficult to release in >>> February (as is stipulated now) >>> >>> >>> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote: >>> On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > >> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. >> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal >> I guess. > > No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens. > These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen. I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good - integrate the detached project - apply the refactorings during development then in the next release - change tools to use the new infrastructure - remove old code I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no? >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Thierry Goubier > CEA list > Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués > 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex > France > Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95 >
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
I've used Pharo 2.0 for teaching on Monday/Tuesday. Apart from a few bugs here and there, it worked fine (but the bugs were rather annoying to explain to Smalltalk beginners). At the same time, my production development is on 1.4. So I think it could/should go beta soon. I'd be happy if I know some of the core packages won't change under me :) Thierry Le 22/11/2012 08:17, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit : sounds good to me. Esteban we should do a list of points to fix. - Nautilus with trees :) - default shortcuts - fix criticbrowser (I'm working on it). - - Stef my proposal so far is: - prepare the vms as "NB ready" (I was planning to work on that next week, using the new infraestructure) - include NB as "ready to use" - include Opal as "preview" No more integrations for 2.0. We will be able to load Athens (since VMs and image will be prepared) with just a simple Metacello configuration. I don't know if including it as "preview" (like opal) Igor, what do you think? I need all next week to prepare that (with Marcus assistance, of course :P)... Are we ok with that? Esteban ps: If we don't go to beta next week will be really difficult to release in February (as is stipulated now) On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote: On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess. No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens. These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen. I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good - integrate the detached project - apply the refactorings during development then in the next release - change tools to use the new infrastructure - remove old code I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no? -- Thierry Goubier CEA list Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex France Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
sounds good to me. Esteban we should do a list of points to fix. - Nautilus with trees :) - default shortcuts - fix criticbrowser (I'm working on it). - - Stef > my proposal so far is: > > - prepare the vms as "NB ready" (I was planning to work on that next week, > using the new infraestructure) > - include NB as "ready to use" > - include Opal as "preview" > > No more integrations for 2.0. > We will be able to load Athens (since VMs and image will be prepared) with > just a simple Metacello configuration. I don't know if including it as > "preview" (like opal) Igor, what do you think? > > I need all next week to prepare that (with Marcus assistance, of course > :P)... > > Are we ok with that? > > Esteban > > ps: If we don't go to beta next week will be really difficult to release in > February (as is stipulated now) > > > On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote: > >> >> On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess. >>> >>> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens. >>> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen. >> >> I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good >> - integrate the detached project >> - apply the refactorings during development >> >> then in the next release >> - change tools to use the new infrastructure >> - remove old code >> >> I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no? > >
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
+1 > new class builder is NOT marked for inclusion, I'm sorry (even as a preview) It will be for 3.0. Stef
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
Yes! Else nobody will ever look and join Opal improvement. >>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. >>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I >>> guess. >> >> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens. >> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen. > > I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good > - integrate the detached project > - apply the refactorings during development > > then in the next release > - change tools to use the new infrastructure > - remove old code > > I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
sounds like we are in a less is more stage we always have time for new nice surprises let the incomplete stuff for later keep the great work sebastian o/ On Nov 21, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > new class builder is NOT marked for inclusion, I'm sorry (even as a preview) > > On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:56 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni >> wrote: >> >> On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >> > >> > On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >> > >> >> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. >> >> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I >> >> guess. >> > >> > No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens. >> > These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen. >> >> I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good >> - integrate the detached project >> - apply the refactorings during development >> >> then in the next release >> - change tools to use the new infrastructure >> - remove old code >> >> I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no? >> >> >> What about NOT including new class builder nor Opal in 2.0 but as soon as we >> create the initial repo for 2.1 (or whatever), the first 2 things we do is >> to integrate them? >> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> >
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
new class builder is NOT marked for inclusion, I'm sorry (even as a preview) On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:56 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni > wrote: > > On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > > > > On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > >> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. > >> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I > >> guess. > > > > No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens. > > These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen. > > I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good > - integrate the detached project > - apply the refactorings during development > > then in the next release > - change tools to use the new infrastructure > - remove old code > > I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no? > > > What about NOT including new class builder nor Opal in 2.0 but as soon as we > create the initial repo for 2.1 (or whatever), the first 2 things we do is to > integrate them? > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
my proposal so far is: - prepare the vms as "NB ready" (I was planning to work on that next week, using the new infraestructure) - include NB as "ready to use" - include Opal as "preview" No more integrations for 2.0. We will be able to load Athens (since VMs and image will be prepared) with just a simple Metacello configuration. I don't know if including it as "preview" (like opal) Igor, what do you think? I need all next week to prepare that (with Marcus assistance, of course :P)... Are we ok with that? Esteban ps: If we don't go to beta next week will be really difficult to release in February (as is stipulated now) On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote: > > On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> >> On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >> >>> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. >>> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I >>> guess. >> >> No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens. >> These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen. > > I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good > - integrate the detached project > - apply the refactorings during development > > then in the next release > - change tools to use the new infrastructure > - remove old code > > I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote: > > On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse > wrote: > > > > > On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > >> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. > >> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal > I guess. > > > > No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens. > > These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen. > > I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good > - integrate the detached project > - apply the refactorings during development > > then in the next release > - change tools to use the new infrastructure > - remove old code > > I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no? > What about NOT including new class builder nor Opal in 2.0 but as soon as we create the initial repo for 2.1 (or whatever), the first 2 things we do is to integrate them? -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
On 2012-11-21, at 19:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > >> +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. >> So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I >> guess. > > No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens. > These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen. I think that the thing we did with filesystem in 1.4 was good - integrate the detached project - apply the refactorings during development then in the next release - change tools to use the new infrastructure - remove old code I think we did almost the same with Zinc, no?
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > +1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. > So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I > guess. No Opal should be in previous as well as Athens. These projects should come back to light. Else this will never happen. Stef
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
+1 for including only NB and then just bug fixes. No new stuff. So...slots and new classbuilder will be for next release. Same for Opal I guess. On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Stéphane Ducasse < stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote: > Please! > Because I refrain myself to fix and changes so we should focus on bug > fixing and not opening new things. > > > I was thinking on going beta next week, actually :) > > > > > >>> when do we go beta? > >> > >> I have been using 2.0 for months now, it has been very stable (apart > from some hiccups). > >> > >> It is so much better that it would be immoral to keep this from the > world ;-) > >> > >> We just have to declare a stabilization period in which we refrain from > big/dangerous changes and work more on stability and testing. > > Thanks sven. > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
Please! Because I refrain myself to fix and changes so we should focus on bug fixing and not opening new things. > I was thinking on going beta next week, actually :) > > >>> when do we go beta? >> >> I have been using 2.0 for months now, it has been very stable (apart from >> some hiccups). >> >> It is so much better that it would be immoral to keep this from the world ;-) >> >> We just have to declare a stabilization period in which we refrain from >> big/dangerous changes and work more on stability and testing. Thanks sven.
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
On Nov 21, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Gary Chambers wrote: > Who knows... despite the (1.4 to 2.0 transition) we've had to stay on 1.4 for > stability/sanity since we have a live product. We can understand. Now we hope that the new aspect will really interest you ;) We re thinking about tools to help companies migrating. We are designing a new change model recording refactoring so that we can also propose changes summary. We improved a lot but the road is long. Stef > Will take a while to ascertain the impact. Guess we go once final for us. > > Sorry not had the time to follow the 2.0 progression in use. > > Regards, Gary > > - Original Message - From: "Stéphane Ducasse" > > To: "Pharo Development" > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:19 PM > Subject: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta? > > >> Stef > >
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
yes, next week :) On Nov 21, 2012, at 8:05 PM, "Torsten Bergmann" wrote: > AFAIK the idea was to integrate NB into Pharo 2.0. > So shouldnt this be done first ... > > >
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
I was thinking on going beta next week, actually :) On Nov 21, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:19, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> when do we go beta? > > I have been using 2.0 for months now, it has been very stable (apart from > some hiccups). > > It is so much better that it would be immoral to keep this from the world ;-) > > We just have to declare a stabilization period in which we refrain from > big/dangerous changes and work more on stability and testing. > > My 2c, > > Sven > > >
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:19, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > when do we go beta? I have been using 2.0 for months now, it has been very stable (apart from some hiccups). It is so much better that it would be immoral to keep this from the world ;-) We just have to declare a stabilization period in which we refrain from big/dangerous changes and work more on stability and testing. My 2c, Sven
Re: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta?
Who knows... despite the (1.4 to 2.0 transition) we've had to stay on 1.4 for stability/sanity since we have a live product. Will take a while to ascertain the impact. Guess we go once final for us. Sorry not had the time to follow the 2.0 progression in use. Regards, Gary - Original Message - From: "Stéphane Ducasse" To: "Pharo Development" Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:19 PM Subject: [Pharo-project] when do we go beta? Stef
