[squeak-dev] Re: Hudson Status?

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Wed May 4 02:59:00 UTC 2011


On 4 May 2011 04:30, Chris Cunnington <smalltalktelevision at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Casey,
>
> Your offer to help with a Hudson server is valuable. And it will likely be
> very valuable in the near future. I'm responding, because I don't want your
> potential contribution to be ignored.
>
> There are some arguments that need to be worked out "in camera" before the
> way forward is clear. You're an excellent programmer. Let us hammer out some
> of the details first. The topic of modularity has come seemingly all at
> once, but this plan has been waiting a year and this convocation of the
> Squeak board has a year to get things set on the right course.
>
> For what it's worth, the video you're looking for is here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4I7fSVNX2A
>
> If you go back to September Squeak postings you'll find I was one of it's
> earliest proponents. And although I can't find the post right now, Stef
> rejected this as a model for namespaces in Pharo.

I can't say for Stef, of course. But i know that Pharo are slowly (but
steady) drifting towards improved
and modular model.
Which means , better tools support for improved modularity. Package
management support ,
and eventually namespaces.

Currently the work in progress going on, with main idea to abandon a
concept of having single namespace in system (which is a system
dictionary). It requires a bit ;) of  effort - making sure all tools
working with 'environment' object, and not assuming that there are
single global environment which they can access directly.

Only after this is done, it will be quite easy to introduce new
namespace model.

(concerning that video, i like the idea of having namespaces.. but
browser with 5 list panels is too much)

And concerning namespaces in overall, if you don't know it already, it
is really hard to convince all smalltalkers, which
namespaces model is better to employ .. its been a discussion about
them over a years.. and none of them were actually
lead to solution which is then implemented and forced into our images :)

>
> I don't want to say "We'll get back to you" and sound like a jerk, but
> there's a screaming match brewing that the SOB that needs to resolve in
> private before we can say what the next step is.
>
> Please bear with us,
>
> Chris
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list