[squeak-dev] FileDoesNotExistException on existing changes file
during trunk update
Eliot Miranda
eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Mon Sep 1 19:27:02 UTC 2014
Hi Chris,
my message was in no way an outburst. Merely a plea that folks not
release old VMs. I misread your paragraph about the 2776 VM, and saw it as
a proposal to release using the 2776 VM. Apologies. I'm still jet
lagged...
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Bernard,
> >>
> >>> Thanks for your answer! See below.
> >>>
> >>> Am 31.08.2014 um 09:50 schrieb Nicolas Cellier <
> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>:
> >>>> 2014-08-30 15:31 GMT+02:00 Bernhard Pieber <bernhard at pieber.com>:
> >>>>> Dear fellow Squeakers,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I continued my quest to create a current clean 4.6 trunk imge and
> still run into problems.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am on OS X 10.9.4. I use Eliot's latest Cog.app and the 4.5
> release image (Squeak4.5-13680.image) from the FTP server. See here [1] for
> the bash commands I use to set up my starting point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then I execute the following script in a workspace:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> MCMcmUpdater
> >>>>> defaultUpdateURL: 'http://source.squeak.org/trunk';
> >>>>> updateFromServer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> During processing of update-eem.287.mcm a popup menu appears saying
> that the Squeak4.5-13680.changes file does not exist. This is incorrect
> because the file exists. When I choose Debug I get
> FileDoesNotExistException. See the attached PNG and SqueakDebug.log.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would be interested if others run into the same problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> It happens to me from time to time.
> >>> It's a consolation to know that I am not the only one seeing this.
> With the process I follow I have it every time, i.e. I can reliably
> reproduce it.
> >>
> >> This is really strange Bernnard. But one thing to remember is that
> >> the 13680 image has a corruption. Search the mailing list for
> >> subject: "(Environment named: #Smalltalk) trap in 4.5." That thread
> >> explains the corruption related to having String-key's in an
> >> IdentityDictionary..
> >>
> >> Could you try updating your 13680 image from the 'squeak45' repository
> >> FIRST, to ensure you get my fix for that BEFORE you change to trunk.
> >> This will take you to 13687. THEN you can change your updateUrl to
> >> trunk and update from there. Does that help on your end at all?
> >>
> >> I just tried it both ways but didn't experience the issues you did
> >> whether I updated from squeak45 first or not. No dirty packages, and
> >> your Error catch select: produced no errors but returned an empty
> >> collection for me.
> >>
> >> But I'm going from Linux and using the 2776 VM which ships with 4.5.
> >> I think that is the most reliable VM right now. I'm curious if you
> >> reproduce my steps above whether it reproduces my success?
> >
> > Please NO, NO and thrice NO. Each VM I post on my site is posted
> because it fixes some bug or achieves some performance improvement or adds
> functionality. 2776 is old. It contains bugs fixed by subsequent
> releases. Unless you have regression treats showing failures with later
> VMs you should use the latest VM available.
>
> Sheesh Eliot. I assume your outburst is by my statement that "I think
> 2776 is the most reliable right now". If so, fine, I stand corrected
> but 1) I said "think" which implies a degree of uncertainty, and 2)
> we're not talking about Cog right now, we're simply trying to
> establish consisten reproducibility of Bernard's issue, of which the
> VM is a major component.
>
> In this case, the failure occurred when Bernard used the latest VM on
> Mac, but didn't when I used 2776 on Linux.
>
> I also wanted to test it with the actual VM that was released WITH
> Squeak-4.5, so I can assess whether the problem Bernard is having
> could potentially affect new Squeak users using the All-In-One. Is
> that okay?
>
> > Note that there is significant regression testing of Newspeak VMs at
> Cadence.
>
> Okay, so the difference in reproducibility is probably not the VM,
> still, I hope you won't mind if I MENTION what VM I used. I'll try to
> be careful in the future about making any statements about relative
> quality to newer versions.
>
> > Releasing old VMs just makes everyone's life harder. I have to explain
> that it's not the latest, and they have to upload it. So /please/ use the
> latest VM available.
>
> Who is releasing old VM's? Not I.
>
> As for using the latest, please understand I have a lot on my plate
> right now. Like when a new motherboard BIOS is released, I don't
> immediately shut everything down to update it unless there's a good
> reason to. I can always go forward if problems develop, but going
> backward is not easy.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
--
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140901/2cf09772/attachment.htm
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|