[squeak-dev] Terms of Reference: discussion is open

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Thu Nov 12 12:30:14 UTC 2009


Resurrecting the topic.
Guys, is there anyone else has to say something about it?

Or we should consider that discussion is closed?
Given the often opposite opinions, i think it would be really hard to
distill & build some formal statements on top of that..
Or maybe i'm wrong, and we got a consensus here?


2009/11/7 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ken G. Brown <kbrown at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 11:03 AM -0800 11/7/09, Eliot Miranda apparently wrote:
>> >On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Ken G. Brown
>> > <<mailto:kbrown at mac.com>kbrown at mac.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >At 12:00 PM -0800 11/6/09, Eliot Miranda apparently wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Ken G. Brown
>> > > <<mailto:<mailto:kbrown at mac.com>kbrown at mac.com><mailto:kbrown at mac.com>kbrown at mac.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>At 7:15 PM +0100 11/6/09, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote:
>> >>>On 06.11.2009, at 18:46, Ken G. Brown wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>IMHO, such smart guys that are doing the majority of contributions to
>> >>>> trunk could have figured out the way forward with Keith's established future
>> >>>> methodology using Installer, Sake/Packages, Bob the Builder, MC 1.5/1.6 in
>> >>>> about ten minutes.  Some were already up to speed on the way forward. They
>> >>>> could then have contributed fixes to the tools for that methodology where
>> >>>> required and we would be now in the future instead of stuck in the past,
>> >>>> forked yet again with the old trunk methodology (it's not a 'new'
>> >>>> development model) that got us into the difficulties in the first place.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Ken G. Brown
>> >>>
>> >>>If it all sounds so easy (which in fact it wasn't, neither for the
>> >>> board members nor the community at large half a year ago) then why don't you
>> >>> contribute a tool everybody can use to easily harvest Mantis fixes into
>> >>> Trunk? Or add Installer support for trunk development? Or set up a Bob
>> >>> server to churn out ready-built trunk images and test results? Or make a
>> >>> trunk image with MC 1.5/1.6?
>> >>
>> >>I believe you are looking at this the wrong way around. The trunk
>> >> started at an old position.
>> >
>> > >As you surely know, latest Installer, lpf and Sake/packages are already
>> > > in the latest
>> > > <<http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf>http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf><http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf>ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf
>> > > or
>> > > <<http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/>http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/><http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/>ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/,
>> > > ready to go for Bob the Builder. If the trunk additions were added to the
>> > > latest, using Sake/Packages I believe we would have something. Andreas and I
>> > > showed that the trunk repository gets quite far along loading into Keith's
>> > > latest but with hacks required to overcome the divergence that trunk has
>> > > taken. Someone with the intimate knowledge of what is going wrong could most
>> > > likely fix the remaining issue/issues easily.  Adding lpf, MC 1.5/1.6 etc.
>> > > to trunk, just continues the divergence.
>> >
>> > >
>> >>
>> >>>It may take you more then 10 minutes but *that* might get us moved
>> >>> forward even faster. Trunk development does progress fine, but we're all for
>> >>> improved tools and processes, so let's see them.
>> >>
>> >>You only need to look at Keith's documentation, videos, and emails to
>> >> see where it is all at. He has explained this all in my opinion in enough
>> >> detail over and over again.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>We've already been over this.  A disparate set of communications is
>> >> inadequate.  It is too onerous to try and understand the system from a long
>> >> and multi-media thread.  This needs to be committed to some web pages, e.g.
>> >> a wiki.
>> >>
>> >
>> >For a while (before trunk), I was saving pertinent emails to a blog at
>> > <<http://squeaktipsandtrickswatch.blogspot.com/>http://squeaktipsandtrickswatch.blogspot.com/>.
>> > Some things have changed with Keith's stuff since but relatively minor I
>> > think. One could ask him if really interested.
>> >Here is Keith's video from 4 months ago
>> > <http://www.vimeo.com/groups/squeak/videos/5434330>http://www.vimeo.com/groups/squeak/videos/5434330
>> > showing  how to use Sake/Packages to load AND unload Seaside 3.0.
>> >
>> >
>> >I am NOT sitting through a video taking notes.  That should be done once
>> > by the documentor(s), not multiple times by each viewer.  A video is such an
>> > ADD way of communicating technical information.  It is NOT a reference
>> > document.  It is great for an informal talk that provides entertainment and
>> > enlightenment in equal measure.  But as a manual page it is pathetic.  The
>> > medium needs to fit the message.
>> >
>>
>> That is what is available that I know of, my conclusion is that you may
>> not want to learn about Sake then.
>
> On the contrary.  I would like very much to try Keith's build system.  But I
> have limited time.  I could easily say that Sake implementors are not
> interested in gaining adoption.  But what's the point of a tit-for-tat?  Get
> the point that people who are serious about adoption of technical systems
> document them properly. video is a marketing tool, not a documenting tool.
>
>>
>> As well, I learned from the video that you can do Installer install:
>> 'Packages'. in a LPF image if it is not there to install Sake.
>> I see that SakeTask has a class comment, there probably is more.
>>
>> Ken G. Brown
>>
>> >Ken G. Brown
>> >
>> >
>> >>Ken G. Brown
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>And now back to the discussion at hand, shall we? Otherwise please
>> >>> change the subject.
>> >>>
>> >>>- Bert -
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list