[V3dot10] [auto]

stephane ducasse stephane.ducasse at free.fr
Fri Jan 12 07:46:56 UTC 2007

Hi guys

Here are my feedback. I already said that... but I say it again.  
Sorry this mail is a bit harsh, so interpret it as a huge frustration  

> 2) Raised bug http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=5718 with regard to  
> browsers getting upset when categories are removed.
> 3) Have been discussing with Edgar the desirability of having tests  
> in one package.
> The goal being easy load/unload of tests. I do not think that the  
> one package approach is flexible enough and so I am working on a  
> viable alternative which builds upon the 3.9 packaging divisions.
> a) So for step 1, easy unload of Tests, all Tests (even tests from  
> non-base packages, as long as the naming convention is used. The  
> following oxymoron:  Installer install: 'UnloadTests', which simply  
> calls Installer unload: '*Tests-*'.

I think that grouping all the tests in one package is stupid. This  
goes against any effort of modules.

> b) For easy reloading of tests three options come to mind.
> Monticello configurations
> Installer script
> PackageUniverses, Tests (sub)universe!

PackageUniverses do not serve this purpose. You will not have the  
right granularity.
if you publish a package with a bug and want to skip you want a list  
of PRECISE package number.

Ideally I would work with Monticello configurations but it does not  
work for certain operation
BECAUSE the list of packages is not treated as a whole and hence  
break the cool features of MC that when you load
a set of packages, the loading works at the level of the class (which  
is really good for a system like squeak where
the category sometimes have mutual dependencies. HOWEVER, MC default  
semantics does not all the time
this is why in the ScriptLoader we can specify if we want to load a  
group of package one after the others or
if you want to load a bunch of packages so that MC can do its nice job.

Now I should say that I do not understand why you do not try to  
understand what we did. May be we were totally stupid afterall.
May be redoing is better.

> I think that the most elegant of these would be the  
> PackageUniverses option, but I suspect that the most pragmatic  
> option will be the Installer script option, so watch this space.

Does you script works for loading the complete set of squeak image  
package. Because this is the question
lot of solution works for simple even large packages that have been  
prepared and layered nicely But the image
is not like that.

> 4) Installer #install: being joined by a synonym #do:
> The above oxymoron can now be expressed slightly more  logically as
> Installer do: 'UnloadTests'
> 5) Started documentation page http://squeak310.pbwiki.com/ 
> ConventionsFor310
> 6) I have renamed the -dev branch to -unstable so as to avoid  
> confusion with the dev-image.

It would be good that you show a list of FIX that you want to harvest.
Because people could give you feedback.


> cheers
> Keith
> New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find  
> out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win  
> prizes.
> _______________________________________________
> V3dot10 mailing list
> V3dot10 at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/v3dot10

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list