Hey!

I decided to sum up a bit here, we aren't getting anywhere really:

1. SS is *not* an archive. It doesn't *say* it is an archive (I don't 
need to present more proof than that), it invites new people to register 
and work there and it hosts alive projects that are open for write.

2. Since it is not an archive I reserve the right to delete my own stuff 
from it - but I have decided that the least disruptive route (no old 
URLs break) for my own projects that I have moved to StHub is to:
	- Place a visible note explaining this is archived projects
	- Place a last MC snapshot explaining the same
	- Turn them readonly

3. Regarding the original question of Andreas' projects and his account 
- I think Ron can decide, is that fine with everyone else?

Ok, so that out of the way, anyone still awake in this thread and 
really, really curious about catalogs etc here comes the rest:

On 02/14/2014 04:51 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
[SNIIIIP]
>> I loved the idea of a canonical catalog. I fought to prevent SS overlapping
>> with SM and I lost that fight. These days we have Pharo too - and they are
>> recreating their own catalogs etc, even seems to be more than one...
>>
>> So I consider the fight lost. You only seem to consider Squeak (similar to
>> as you accused me of only considering Pharo) - when you say "I think we can
>> do it" I don't think you are including the Pharo community in that, are you?
>
> Of course I am including Pharo community!  That's why I mentioned
> their "new catalog".

So you really think it is realistic to create a new canonical single 
Smalltalk catalog?

>>> You have really forgotten how rich your SM domain is as a catalog
>>> model.  You designed it back then when we faced the same problem we do
>>> now:  Uncertainty about where and how external software is loaded.  SS

I haven't forgotten.

>>> knows nothing about external locations like SS3 or SmalltalkHub, a
>>> catalog does.  SS knows nothing about what version of Squeak or Pharo
>>> I need to use version 123 of Package XYZ.  A catalog does.  That's the
>>> problem it solves -- documenting what software works with what and
>>> where to get it.  SS is just a SC repository.
>>
>> I sympathize with the idea you paint of course - as you know. But I don't
>> agree with this being a picture reflecting reality.
>>
>> - SS is a catalog too.
>> - SS3 is a catalog too.
>> - StHub is a catalog too.
>> - Pharo project has at least one more catalog.
>> - Metacello does all the "versions for this and that" these days in Pharo
>> land.
>
> You can't just declare something a catalog because it has a collection
> of projects.  There are many more use-cases and requirements of a
> catalog than that.

Well, if I go by the "does people use it as a catalog"-test - then they 
*are* catalogs. People search in them and browse them, because there is 
no other catalog they can use. End of story, they are catalogs.

If I want to check if there is an IMAP implementation I need to:

- Search in SS
- Search in SS3
- Search in StHub (yeah, its silly limited at this point, but you can)
- Probably search in whatever new catalog Pharo has come up with, I 
really don't know how that works yet.
- Probably search in github too (found cool stuff there just the other day)
- Search google, to cover all bases

> StHub doesn't even have a Browse function, one of the most basic
> use-cases of a catalog!  None of the above (except Metacello) knows
> one IOTA about anything in any repository other than its own.

Well, yeah, but since Metacello does all of them can actually reference 
other repos. Metacello - even if I think it is crazy confusing - is the 
only thing we have at this point for the area it covers.

> By definition, that's not a catalog.

I disagree. If people use these things as catalogs, then they are.

> Göran, YOU were the one who, about 10 years ago, opened MY eyes to the
> distinction of a Catalog domain from a Source-Code-Repository domain.
> What happened man?

Hehe, well, lots of things happened. I now have two daughters for one 
thing, which means my spare time to build a new global super 
encompassing catalog is cut down to about 0 hours.

I still think it would be ubercool to have a really good common catalog 
that covers at least all platforms that does MC *and* that people 
actually rely on for say 99% of the time.

BUT... although that would be cool to have I don't see anyone here 
pulling it off. That's being realistic. :)

>>> If you want to put external URL information that one would expect to
>>> find in the catalog in the SC repository "notes" field for your
>>> projects, you can do that.  But to break into another account and do
>>> it is something I think we should ask ourselves, "is this _really_
>>> necessary, or should we just have a catalog since that solves this and
>>> so many other issues too?"

Problem: Make sure Andreas' projects don't rot.

Solution proposed: Start building a single global catalog and convince 
all the other projects to use it. Then when that is done just make sure 
that new catalog does not point to Andreas' old frozen projects as the 
live ones.

....nah.

>> Again, I agree that a single canonical catalog that everyone would use, both
>> Pharo and Squeakers is a great thing to have. But we do not have it.
>
> Hmm, what is this?
>
>      https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/job/PharoProjectCatalog/HTML_Report/
>
> What is this?
>
>      http://map.squeak.org/

Yeah, those are TWO different catalogs. I was saying "single canonical 
catalog". 2 > 1.

[SNIP]
>>> SS WAS a hosting service.  Now its a preserved archive.  That's why
>>
>> No it is NOT. You need to admit this. Just read:
>>
>> "Welcome to SqueakSource, the smart Monticello code repository for Squeak
>> and Pharo. To get started, register your personal account. You'll
>> immediately get all the necessary permissions to create and manage your
>> account, projects and versions."
>>
>> It does NOT say archive anywhere. It is NOT read only (as archives should
>> be). IT IS NOT AN ARCHIVE. Sorry for capitals.
>>
>> NOTE: The welcome text is really bad - I mean, it says I can create
>> projects, and then it says I can not...
>
> Yeah, the old original text is "preserved" but then the red box is the new text.

Ah... so the red box says "archive"? Nope. It is not an archive! Not, 
not, not!!! ;)

[SNIP]
>>> You keep ignoring the organic-growth problem.  Sure, you could delete
>>> them but somewhere someone using an old version has a backup and so
>>> what if THEY re-added those projects, under the same name, but now
>>> under their admin?
>>
>> Sure, they are free to do that - but people tend *not* to. And even if they
>> did it would not be under my name. Big difference.
>
> Well, maybe that's a solution then.  Assigning someone else as admin /
> developer and then taking your name off the projects?

Eh, for a project that I am also keeping alive at StHub? Why would I 
encourage someone to maintain a fork on SS?

[SNIP]
> All the more reason, Göran, for you to re-embrace the _idea_ of a real catalog.

You have no idea how much energy I put into it last time. And in this 
day and time it would be 10x harder to get people on board.

> Until that idea takes root and people in the community actually
> _accept_ it, we will continue to languish in the very "confusion" you
> want to avoid.

Yup! And during that languishing I am doing the small things to keep "my 
shit together" to avoid confusion. :)

regards, Göran