[squeak-dev] [Cuis] Cuis

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Thu Jan 21 20:28:42 UTC 2010


On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:21 PM, keith <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>  All 'grand' projects growing out from small ones. Which makes little
>> ones as much as valuable
>> as any of your 'grand' project. I'd prefer seeing 10 little projects
>> popping out each month, than
>> 1 grand project popping out once in 2 years.
>>
>
> Igor,
>
> I think you need to think about what you are saying more carefully, you are
> arguing against yourself here.
>
> The trunk process is a "grand project" which hasn't produced anything of
> any use for 6 months. It signs up the community for an ongoing wait of 12-18
> months per release. It ties you in to the "grand project" ethos which we all
> said we didn't want.
>

Nonsense.  In the past 6 months, just to take three that come to mind, we
have closures, native fonts and unloadable smaller traits.  There are lots
of other things also; go look at the recent changes list.  Trunk is actually
progressing very nicely.

You might try contributing code rather than whining at length.  It's more
fun for everyone.  Better for the community.


> My process produced a stream of useful projects popping up along the way at
> regular intervals, that is what you are saying you want isnt it?
>
> We set the goal "We don't want an image, we want a kernel, that you can
> build distributions from." So what do you and the board do? Yep the
> opposite! You build a monolithic image using a process that can only build a
> monolithic image.
>
> Furthermore the process I produced (and finished) with Bob, was designed to
> produce monthly or bi-monthly releases, with all fixes auto documented.
> Which is also what we wanted. The goal is to "release early and often", so
> what does the board do, yep exactly the opposite. A new process that will
> take a year to produce anything, and nothing will be auto-documented.
>
> So you say you want something every month or so, but defend to the hilt the
> process which will NOT deliver it.
>
> You had a release of Bob, in an image, loaded for you to play with in
> February (did you download it?), you had a release of Sake/Packages 18
> months ago (you told me you didn't use that either). The problem is that you
> all seem to say you want small projects popping up regularly, but when they
> pop up you dont use them. Furthermore you seem to be working arduously to
> make those small projects, which apparently you desperately want,
> irrelevant, and obsolete, when they are still useful, and in use today.
>
> We want squeak to go forwards not backwards.
>
> There was no grand project, to produce the 3.11, there was a process. In
> case you don't know, a process is a way of thinking about the problem, and
> applying yourself to achieve a defined goal. The board approved this goal to
> provide this process. The process was being used, and was working. It had
> not quite produced a result yet, but I was making videos showing THE PROCESS
> which was the deliverable of the 3.11 effort was not an image, but the
> process that would enable to community to build future images, and that is
> what I was documenting and making videos of.
>
> The actual deliverable of 3.11 could have been produced any time, the
> script was written 18 months ago. 60% of it was in LPF already, and we had
> plenty of users, and a downloadable image. All you had to do was run the
> script manually. Ken Brown had a go, he was convinced. But the deliverable
> was not the image it was the process, that is what the board approved, so
> having a go at me for not producing an image, is moving the goal posts.
>
> The purpose of this process was to support extreme programming practices
> for all users of squeak, but showcased in the release of 3.11. Now we are
> locked in to a "wait 18 months for a release process all over again".
>
> I never advocated a grand release process, that's what I am complaining
> about, the dog returning to its vomit. We already decided that this wasn't
> the way forward.
>
> Your choice to mock me, master Yoda, is hardly commensurate for a positive
> way forward.
>
> My point I still don't think you are getting, is that while squeak is
> running on an 18 month release cycle producing a monolithic image, which
> only serves the vision of the person who built it, and processes are locked
> in to that way of thinking, it is already irrelevant, hence my search for
> something else.
>
> Within the Smalltalk community which invented extreme programming, we are
> basically a bit of a laughing stock, since we cannot produce a release in 20
> minutes.
>
> Keith
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100121/a48b85c5/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list