On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:46 PM, keith <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> If you hadn't spend the last 6 months having a hissy fit you would find you
> weren't as far behind or as inconvenienced.  You might also have
> participated in porting the closure bootstrap
>
>
> Eliot,
>
> I did participate in the bootstrap, I thought I was the first to do so,
> excepting perhaps Andreas.
>
> Bob built an LPF image, with MC1.5 etc, on your first 3.10-closures image,
> you can download it from ftp.squeak.org and I requested feedback or
> suggestions as to what to do next with it to get the debugger working and
> got none.
>

Show me the message.  I don't remember any such message.  I typically do
help in these situations.


> (which does exist as changesets on my blog site and has been adapted to
> three different Squeak distros so far) to your context.  Instead you've
> chosen to disengage,
>
>
> I did not choose to disengage, as I have stated several times, I had no
> choice, and I still have no choice.
>
> Perhaps a timeline will explain.
>
> 1. Due to the unfortunate cancelation of an unrelated client project just a
> few weeks prior to this I had no money and I was a bit down.
>
> In this period there was a 2 month silence form Andreas and the board, not
> a dicky-bird. I was working hard on 'bob', at times, and Bob began producing
> deliverables, documentation and screen casts. Bob was auto-building
> developer images, and one click images etc.
>
> 2. Andreas sent the email "This is THE new process for squeak development"
> that CANCELLED my work, (talk about kicking man when he is down)
> it ended it right there, not a single line of code has been written for Bob
> beyond that day.
>
> Bob needs about an hours work (plus a bit of debugging) to configure the
> automatic testing facility, and then the bob 3.11 "process development"
> effort was complete.
>
> 3. Since then as a direct result of andreas' email to squeak-dev (when I
> had specifically asked Andreas to make release discussions in the
> release-team mailing list) My client and financial situation have
> effectively forbidden me to work any further on "the bob process", since my
> paying clients support of "bob" development was based on the concept that
> the squeak community would be using "bob", and it would be the future
> platform for release-team work, providing regular updates to the base image,
> to our production images, and regular regression tested derived images upon
> which to build and test our production images.
>
> Since the "trunk" based process will only yield an image once every 12-18
> months, we might as well just manually rebuild our base production images
> every 2 years or so, we don't therefore have a pressing need for a
> continuous integration server any more.
>
> 4. When Andreas cancelled "bob" he cancelled my income from bob related
> tools development, and pissed off my client to the extent that work which
> had earlier suffered somewhat at the expense of "bob" was now a priority. If
> I work on bob, I effectively lose the income I do have.
>
> and what would be the point of maintaining an evolving package for old
> images?
>
>
> You don't have to evolve the package when you can evolve the image just
> enough. Using this method LPF loads MC1.5 into Squeak 3.7, but MC1.5 does
> not limit itself to the lowest common denominator API, MC1.5 is written for
> the Squeak 3.10 API, LPF evolves the images just enough.
>
> Cuis is based upon Squeak 3.7
> Spoon is based upon 3.2
> Doesn't dabble db still use 3.7 images as its workhorses.
>
> Gjallar was on 3.8 up until a year or 2 ago, when Installer allowed it to
> move to 3.10
>
> Eventually the old becomes the obsolete; the cost-benefit ratio falls below
> 1.  If you want to be a curator then that's up to you, but I get the
> impression that this community wants to be productive and self-expressive.
>  The past is past.
>
>
> The problem with computers is, you are stuck with what you buy for 20 years
> or more in some cases. You are one of the lucky ones that gets to always use
> the latest stuff.
>
> For example, the harrier jump jet nozzle models are written in PDP11 basic,
> limited to 9999 lines of code, they still have pdp11's
>
> (& BTW the knowledge on how to implement closures is widespread (mine is
> based on a lisp implementation strategy), and what you're talking about is
> the bootstrap, not the implementation).
>
>
>
>> I think you misunderstand me my gripe is not about making progress, it is
>> about throwing all the knowledge into one disorganised pot, aka "trunk".
>>
>
> Whatever.  Looks like you failed over two years to make a new release
>
>
> I didn't fail to make a release, the release wasn't the objective. Andreas
> finally realised that after 2 months. A version of the release image 3.11
> was produced manually by a script 18 months earlier. Ken Brown had a go and
> did it himself. Anyone can hack an image, it takes a bit longer to produce a
> continuous integration server that makes an image.
>
> The task we wrote a proposal for to the board was for a "continuous
> integration PROCESS", NOT an image.
>
> What you forget, or don't know, is that we only made this proposal after
> the board had outright announced plans to cancel 3.11, and said there would
> be no further development of 3.x. I.e. The board at the time said we DONT
> want an image, 3.10 is the end of the line, for 3.x
>
> We piped up and said, ok, but if we had a continuous integration server,
> that could produce a 3.11, 3.12 etc as stabilising maintenance releases,
> bringing 3.x to a solid dependable conclusion, in anticipation of the brave
> new world of Squeak 5.x
>
> Radical "change the world work" was being carried out in Spoon, Squeak 5.0,
> so Andreas should have taken over spoon, which was over a year past its
> promised delivery date, without any sign of progress updates.
>
> Andreas and the board moved the goal posts that they had approved without
> even bothering to talking to us. All of a sudden we are accused of not
> producing an image, when that wasn't the goal.
>
> It was pretty disingenuous to scupper all that work without even a
> discussion, or consideration of the implications.
>
> , got upset when people finally lost patience
>
>
> Like I said the board had cancelled 3.x already.
>
> and started work again, and that you lack the objectivity to realise your
> part in your misfortune.
>
>
> No I don't lack objectivity.
>
> We were doing exactly what we had said we would do, and we were at the
> point of packaging up the final deliverables, and we would have told anyone
> that talked to us of the situation. That we were no more than a week away
> from completion and potential delivery of the cherished image. Since the
> image is auto generated, you simply pick your release date and it generates
> it according to the status of mantis at the time. So the process of
> discussion would have been, ok guys we have two weeks to tidy up a few of
> the mantis reports, and to check things, then we will hit the button and
> your image will be produced.
>
> The sudden inflammation of the discussion on squeak-dev where complete
> strangers started asking where is the new image, was a complete surprise,
> and I didn't even think it was worth replying to at the time, because we had
> made it clear already in writing, approved by the board that we were not
> producing one, but the means to produce one.
>
> There are protocols, namely that the release-team is responsible for the
> releases, and it was Andreas' duty to join the release team, and to work
> with the leaders, without being contrary and to discuss release ideas on the
> release-team mailing list, when I had made a specific request for him to do
> so.
>
> It was extremely disingenuous of him to start the release-team discussions
> on squeak-dev, when I had explicitly asked him not to because at the time my
> paying clients were on squeak-dev and could see what was happening. As a
> result they pulled the financial plug on me, and constrained my freedom to
> make further benevolent contributions.
>
>  You were the one who wouldn't release Bob open source.
>
>
> I only threatened that in a moment of complete disgust and abject poverty,
> wondering where I would get my next meal from.
>
> Check the repositories and the licences. I have mentioned several times
> that Bob is in the repos and all repos are open.
>

I'm very glad to hear both that abject poverty is no longer pressing and
that Bob is available.


> I think I'm pissing in the breeze.  Surprise me if I'm wrong.
>
>
> Nope you are not wrong, because I can't do anything, like I say I have no
> choice.
>

I think you have the choice to dump your animus and reengage constructively
with the community.  I for one have no patience for your careful rationality
when it is interleaved with animus, negativity, (from my perspective
self-justificatory) rehashing of the past, and belittling of others'
contributions.  If you haven't already done so, I suggest you do need to
see
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.htmland
think about its implications.  You're not helping and few if any are
going to work with you while you rant on about how bad and evil some of us
are.  My gut reaction is "fuck you" and I know I'm not alone.  So instead of
saying "I did it all, I was betrayed" try and dump that crap and start to
contribute.  I'm on the verge of unsubscribing from Squeak-dev and Pharo
because the communicatins costs are too high.  There are hundreds of
messages a day, many on "will you commit this?" "great, thanks for
committing that", lots of animus messages in this thread, and precious
little of the technical communication I participate here for.  Can we please
get back to writing code, collaborating and making progress with Pharo and
Squeak instead of accusing and chatting and (as I'm doing,. bullshitting)?
 I'm 51 and I'm tired of this crap.


> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100122/5e59743b/attachment.htm