Eliot I was replying and I throw away the mail :)
I already applied my new year resolution :)
Stef
PS: we know all that we should have better deprecation policy. We apply that
but deprecation is good for little changes not huge ones.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Guillermo Polito
>
On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:50 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
> Oh, come on...
>
> Levente, we all agree with you. Pharo is trying to use that deprecation
> policy since some months ago... Sometimes people make mistakes (me included)
> and don't do it, but we agreed that we have to deprecate and rem
On 31 December 2010 22:49, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Guillermo Polito
> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, come on...
>>
>> Levente, we all agree with you. Pharo is trying to use that deprecation
>> policy since some months ago... Sometimes people make mistakes (me
>> included)
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Guillermo Polito <
guillermopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, come on...
>
> Levente, we all agree with you. Pharo is trying to use that deprecation
> policy since some months ago... Sometimes people make mistakes (me
> included) and don't do it, but we agreed that
> Of course it is better. A pop up can be in some code path that only
> seldom is executed. For someone loading the code, no warnings means that
> everything is ok. Suppose they install it on a server side image
> thinking that everything is ok. Then sometime after that, the image
> stops working b
On 31 December 2010 19:47, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> 2010/12/31 Levente Uzonyi :
>>>
>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>
ahahaa.. you guys are killing me..
You are taking things too serious.
Yeah.. i would be gladly hear fro
El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 20:38 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
> So you're saying that it's better to get a DNU instead of a deprecation
> warning with proper description about what and how to update/change?
>
No. I say that is the job of the maintainer of the package (or the
upstream developer)
Oh, come on...
Levente, we all agree with you. Pharo is trying to use that deprecation
policy since some months ago... Sometimes people make mistakes (me
included) and don't do it, but we agreed that we have to deprecate and
remove after two versions of being deprecated.
I'm tired of this stupi
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Miguel Cobá wrote:
El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 20:05 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
What you describe here is simply bad practice. One should run the tests
before deploying code (besides testing the complete system thoroughly).
If you use RFB, you can access the GUI in headle
El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 20:05 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
> What you describe here is simply bad practice. One should run the tests
> before deploying code (besides testing the complete system thoroughly).
> If you use RFB, you can access the GUI in headless mode. Also when a
> debugger ope
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Miguel Cobá wrote:
El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 17:18 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Miguel Cobá wrote:
El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 10:22 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, John McIntosh wrote:
Well the question as pointed out was does
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
2010/12/31 Levente Uzonyi :
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
ahahaa.. you guys are killing me..
You are taking things too serious.
Yeah.. i would be gladly hear from Levente, what is 'the proper
deprecation policy'.
But since nobody described
o ask.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The need for the check it outdated, but the method is still sent by
>>>>> external packages. With proper deprecation policy the method would be
>>>>> still
>>>>> availab
El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 17:18 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Miguel Cobá wrote:
>
> > El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 10:22 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
> >> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, John McIntosh wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well the question as pointed out was does this vm support weak obj
On Dec 31, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> 2010/12/31 Levente Uzonyi :
>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>>> ahahaa.. you guys are killing me..
>>> You are taking things too serious.
>>> Yeah.. i would be gladly hear from Levente, what is 'the proper
>>> deprecation policy
we have that this is called Deprecated1.2 Deprecated1.1 except that not all the
methods are deprecated
because we/you forget.
Stef
>
>
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 31 December 2010 12:45, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>> On 31 December 2010 11:03, Nicolas Cellier
>>> wrote:
If Pharo wants
lly be said as "backward compatibility with good
>>>>> stuff is a priority for Pharo." Moving targets are perhaps best left
>>>>> moving for now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
2010/12/31 Levente Uzonyi :
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> ahahaa.. you guys are killing me..
>> You are taking things too serious.
>> Yeah.. i would be gladly hear from Levente, what is 'the proper
>> deprecation policy'.
>> But since nobody described it, we are doomed to use one
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Miguel Cobá wrote:
El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 10:22 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, John McIntosh wrote:
Well the question as pointed out was does this vm support weak object
finalization? and since all closure vm support finalization, then
asking the q
ists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
[le...@elte.hu]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:13 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported
(or so) which is unrelated. The method was removed during a "cleanup&
El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 10:22 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, John McIntosh wrote:
>
> > Well the question as pointed out was does this vm support weak object
> > finalization? and since all closure vm support finalization, then
> > asking the question was mute, so it was d
Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
> On 31 December 2010 12:45, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> On 31 December 2010 11:03, Nicolas Cellier
>> wrote:
>>> If Pharo wants to remove these deprecated methods, an alternative
>>> policy is to move deprecated methods in a separate backward
>>> compatibility package.
>
>
nicolas cellier-2 wrote:
>
> On the other hand, if old packages are usefull, they should be
> maintained and upgraded.
>
This is a great ideal, but in reality there are a ton of useful, out-of-date
packages out there. Anything that helps restore them to usability for the
community is a plus.
t;backward compatibility with good
>>>>> stuff is a priority for Pharo." Moving targets are perhaps best left
>>>>> moving for now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
eventually be said as "backward compatibility with good
>>>> stuff is a priority for Pharo." Moving targets are perhaps best left
>>>> moving for now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________
>
.fr
>>> [pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
>>> [le...@elte.hu]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:13 PM
>>> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
>>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] WeakArray&g
On 31 December 2010 12:45, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 31 December 2010 11:03, Nicolas Cellier
> wrote:
>> On the other hand, if old packages are usefull, they should be
>> maintained and upgraded.
>>
>> If Pharo wants to remove these deprecated methods, an alternative
>> policy is to move deprecat
gt;>> Hopefully that can eventually be said as "backward compatibility with
>>>> good
>>>> stuff is a priority for Pharo." Moving targets are perhaps best left
>>>> moving for now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______
;>
>>> From: pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr
>>> [pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
>>> [le...@elte.hu]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:13 PM
>>> To
e.hu]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:13 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported
(or so) which is unrelated. The method was removed during a "cleanup". And
as you know, backwards compatibility is not a pri
>> [le...@elte.hu]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:13 PM
>> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported
>>
>> (or so) which is unrelated. The met
John M McIntosh wrote:
>
> since all closure vm support finalization, then asking the question was
> mute
>
Okay, so I will remove these unnecessary checks.
Sean
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/WeakArray-isFinalizationSupported-tp3168849p3169081.html
Sent from the Pha
.@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
> [le...@elte.hu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:13 PM
> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported
>
> (or so) which is unrelated. The method was removed duri
oject-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
[le...@elte.hu]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:13 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported
(or so) which is unrelated. The method was removed during a "cleanup".
2010/12/31 Levente Uzonyi :
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> On 30 December 2010 23:11, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
>>>
>>> As I port code from Sophie, I keep running into
>>> WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported calls.
>>
>> This is strange..
>> this code was introduced only since Pharo
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 30 December 2010 23:11, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
As I port code from Sophie, I keep running into
WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported calls.
This is strange..
this code was introduced only since Pharo 1.2
and Squeak 4.2 images jut couple of months a
On 30 December 2010 23:11, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
>
> As I port code from Sophie, I keep running into
> WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported calls.
This is strange..
this code was introduced only since Pharo 1.2
and Squeak 4.2 images jut couple of months ago.
And of course, Pharo 1.1 images, wher
As I port code from Sophie, I keep running into
WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported calls.
Why was this method removed from Pharo? I want to make sure I understand
what I'm doing when I remove these calls.
Thanks.
Sean
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/WeakArray-isFinal
38 matches
Mail list logo
