<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">Eliot,</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><div>I did participate in the bootstrap, I thought I was the first to do so, excepting perhaps Andreas.</div><div><br></div><div>Bob built an LPF image, with MC1.5 etc, on your first 3.10-closures image, you can download it from <a href="http://ftp.squeak.org">ftp.squeak.org</a> and I requested feedback or suggestions as to what to do next with it to get the debugger working and got none.</div><div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite" style="font-size: 17px; "><div class="gmail_quote"><div> (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, </div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">I did not choose to disengage, as I have stated several times, I had no choice, and I still have no choice.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">Perhaps a timeline will explain.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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)</div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">it ended it right there, not a single line of code has been written for Bob beyond that day. </div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div></div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>and what would be the point of maintaining an evolving package for old images? </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>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. <br><div><br></div><div>Cuis is based upon Squeak 3.7</div><div>Spoon is based upon 3.2</div><div>Doesn't dabble db still use 3.7 images as its workhorses.</div><div><br></div><div>Gjallar was on 3.8 up until a year or 2 ago, when Installer allowed it to move to 3.10</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>For example, the harrier jump jet nozzle models are written in PDP11 basic, limited to 9999 lines of code, they still have pdp11's</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>(& 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).</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>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".</div> </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Whatever. Looks like you failed over two years to make a new release</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>The task we wrote a proposal for to the board was for a "continuous integration PROCESS", NOT an image. </div><div><br></div><div>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</div><div><br></div><div>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</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>It was pretty disingenuous to scupper all that work without even a discussion, or consideration of the implications.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>, got upset when people finally lost patience </div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">Like I said the board had cancelled 3.x already.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>and started work again, and that you lack the objectivity to realise your part in your misfortune.</div> </div></blockquote><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">No I don't lack objectivity. </div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">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.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> You were the one who wouldn't release Bob open source.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">I only threatened that in a moment of complete disgust and abject poverty, wondering where I would get my next meal from.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">Check the repositories and the licences. I have mentioned several times that Bob is in the repos and all repos are open.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I think I'm pissing in the breeze. Surprise me if I'm wrong.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">Nope you are not wrong, because I can't do anything, like I say I have no choice.</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div><div style="font-size: 17px; ">Keith</div><div style="font-size: 17px; "><br></div></div></body></html>