[squeak-dev] Re: worst crash yet trying to load stuff from Packages Universe in 3.10.2....

Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc. woods at planix.ca
Mon Dec 15 19:54:06 UTC 2008

On 15-Dec-2008, at 1:46 AM, Jerome Peace wrote:
> Sure you wouldn't like to become a mantis reporter?

If I can send an e-mail that will create and/or append to a report,  
then sure!

> Puck would like to know exactly how to recreate this failure.
> (So he can try it out on some of his "friends" :).

Looks like all I had to do was try to load SmallDEVS from the default  
package universe.

> My curiosity would like to know why you are so ambitious as to load  
> so much.

I want to start with everything I want, either functionality or as  
reference classes.

Partly I want to start this way because I have VERY quickly learned  
that I can accidentally break an image just by trying to file  
something in that someone else has published, even if it has  
supposedly been "blessed" in some way by being included in the default  
package universe for the release I'm using.  I'm not quite so  
disciplined that I will remember to be very careful with image copies  
later on so I'm trying to create a stable baseline image with  
everything I think I'll want for now.

> And I sympathize with you wanting it all to work right away. Out of  
> the box.

To quote from <URL:http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5918>:

	"The Stable 3.10 universe is a package universe for Squeak 3.10, akin  
to the ones done for 3.7 and 3.9. It includes 214 optional packages  
that have all been verified to at least load into Squeak 3.10."

I don't exactly know if what it refers to is the same thing that I get  
when I press the "Package Universe" button on the initial World in the  
3.10.2 release image I'm using, but I've now proven at least three or  
more of the packages from the default PU for 3.10.2 won't even file in  
cleanly, and I'm just picking from what I would consider to be a  
_very_ conservative list of things I'm interested in.

> What you may be slowly realizing is that all this is Beta software  
> at best.

"beta"?  3.10.2 isn't even a ".0" release (though it is an even  

Perhaps I'm confusing a nice big button everyone says to press if I  
want stuff back that was taken out of old-time Squeak releases with a  
part of the actual release, but then again there's that claim above  
I'm quoting.

> Test coverage in squeak is a recent thought.

Perhaps, but I didn't have anywhere near this much trouble with 2.8 or  
3.0.  Squeak's QA has completely disintegrated, at least if you  
consider the default PU button to be a part of Squeak.

> Most of the software is released with prayers for its survival.

 From what I've seen of PU, and it's apparent thousands of steps  
backwards from the 3.0 days, I'm not even sure I see any evidence of  
such prayers being made for it!

> First time heavy users find the integration bugs.
> That would be you.

Hah!  If I'm a "heavy user" then I can't imagine how you would  
describe someone who really wants to dive into Squeak and do something  
major.  I'm still just learning here.  I'm not even interested in  
doing any of the really fancy database, web, or image maker stuff.

> Oldtimers, by instinct born of experience, tend to treat squeak  
> tenderly.
> As if they are walking on eggs that might break at any instant
> and give off a rotten stentch.

Having played with 2.8 and 3.0 in days gone by I'd have to say that a  
great deal of this stench is quite recent.

					Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc.
					<woods at planix.ca>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20081215/5699f327/PGP.pgp

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list