As usual Camillo Bruni is several steps ahead of me. Pharo 3.0 mirrors its source code to GitHub nowadays. In particular, "my" use of github for the build scripts is really "our" use of github for the build scripts, so we should have our own Organization on GitHub.
The user/organisation name "squeak" is already taken, so I'm proposing we/I register an organisation called "squeak-project".
Any strenuous objections?
frank
On 18 May 2013 10:15, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
As usual Camillo Bruni is several steps ahead of me. Pharo 3.0 mirrors its source code to GitHub nowadays. In particular, "my" use of github for the build scripts is really "our" use of github for the build scripts, so we should have our own Organization on GitHub.
The user/organisation name "squeak" is already taken, so I'm proposing we/I register an organisation called "squeak-project".
Any strenuous objections?
Just to prevent dark forces preventing us fulfilling our glorious destiny, I've taken the liberty of reserving the name. Let the discussion continue!
frank
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Frank Shearar wrote:
As usual Camillo Bruni is several steps ahead of me. Pharo 3.0 mirrors its source code to GitHub nowadays. In particular, "my" use of github for the build scripts is really "our" use of github for the build scripts, so we should have our own Organization on GitHub.
The user/organisation name "squeak" is already taken, so I'm proposing we/I register an organisation called "squeak-project".
Any strenuous objections?
I'd use squeak-smalltalk, because Squeak is definitely not a project.
Levente
frank
On 19 May 2013 15:49, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Frank Shearar wrote:
As usual Camillo Bruni is several steps ahead of me. Pharo 3.0 mirrors its source code to GitHub nowadays. In particular, "my" use of github for the build scripts is really "our" use of github for the build scripts, so we should have our own Organization on GitHub.
The user/organisation name "squeak" is already taken, so I'm proposing we/I register an organisation called "squeak-project".
Any strenuous objections?
I'd use squeak-smalltalk, because Squeak is definitely not a project.
Well, "project" has a broader meaning than that given it by programmers. How about "squeak-software"?
While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk. It was, after all, intended to be a vehicle to bring _other_ things int existence. It's just that Smalltalk, like Lisp, is particularly good at eating its own children.
frank
Levente
frank
On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk.
You believe this???
Edgar
On 19 May 2013 20:17, Edgar J. De Cleene edgardec2005@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk.
You believe this???
Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" 15 years and older.
But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been called.
frank
Edgar
Frank,
Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" 15 years and older.
While to many people "Smalltalk" is the same as "Smalltalk-80", I prefer a definition what includes Smalltalk-72 as a Smalltalk. Any such definition would most certainly include Self and Slate as Smalltalks too.
Sort of like the confusion about "Free Software", I got tired of explaining my viewpoint regarding my Self/R design and simply renamed it to Neo Smalltalk instead.
I do note that none of the various SqueakFests were about Squeak but rather about Etoys. So I agree that "Squeak Smalltalk" (which happens to be the term I use in all my papers) makes exactly what we are talking about very clear without restricting any future options.
There was a time when the term "Smalltalk" caused very negative reactions and several projects tried to distance themselves from it. But that was when Java was new and needed agressive marketing. I feel that the current situation is entirely different.
-- Jecel
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.comwrote:
But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been called.
Also, if somebody is looking for us, the name "squeak-smalltalk" is going to give them confidence that they've found the right thing. With "squeak-project" there's more room for doubt.
Colin
And I second squeak-smalltalk if someone can nab it.
Squeak is presently -- in my view anyway -- both a dialect and a family thereof. Spiritual and literal descendant thing more or less aside:)
On May 19, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 May 2013 20:17, Edgar J. De Cleene edgardec2005@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk.
You believe this???
Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" 15 years and older.
But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been called.
frank
Edgar
Since the score's currently {squeak-smalltalk: 3 squeak-project: 0} (I changed my mind - today, it's more important to let people find us), I've renamed the organisation to "squeak-smalltalk".
I must stress that this can be changed; I'm squatting the name until the community rejects it.
(Now if I could just see some commits in proportion to the amount of bikeshedding I'd be even happier! (*))
frank
(*) Not that there's been a huge amount of bikeshed. I remain in hope/horror.
On 20 May 2013 06:40, Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r@gmail.com wrote:
And I second squeak-smalltalk if someone can nab it.
Squeak is presently -- in my view anyway -- both a dialect and a family thereof. Spiritual and literal descendant thing more or less aside:)
On May 19, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 May 2013 20:17, Edgar J. De Cleene edgardec2005@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk.
You believe this???
Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" 15 years and older.
But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been called.
frank
Edgar
* https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/ * https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/squeak-ci/
Note that any existing references to https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you to squeak-ci's new home.
frank
On 20 May 2013 10:25, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
Since the score's currently {squeak-smalltalk: 3 squeak-project: 0} (I changed my mind - today, it's more important to let people find us), I've renamed the organisation to "squeak-smalltalk".
I must stress that this can be changed; I'm squatting the name until the community rejects it.
(Now if I could just see some commits in proportion to the amount of bikeshedding I'd be even happier! (*))
frank
(*) Not that there's been a huge amount of bikeshed. I remain in hope/horror.
On 20 May 2013 06:40, Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r@gmail.com wrote:
And I second squeak-smalltalk if someone can nab it.
Squeak is presently -- in my view anyway -- both a dialect and a family thereof. Spiritual and literal descendant thing more or less aside:)
On May 19, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 May 2013 20:17, Edgar J. De Cleene edgardec2005@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk.
You believe this???
Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" 15 years and older.
But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been called.
frank
Edgar
On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
Note that any existing references to https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you to squeak-ci's new home.
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered.
frank
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:33:26PM +0100, Frank Shearar wrote:
On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
Note that any existing references to https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you to squeak-ci's new home.
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered.
frank
I am dtlewis290 on github.
Thanks, Dave
On 23 May 2013 14:39, David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:33:26PM +0100, Frank Shearar wrote:
On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
Note that any existing references to https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you to squeak-ci's new home.
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered.
frank
I am dtlewis290 on github.
Done!
frank
Thanks, Dave
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.comwrote:
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered.
cwp, please.
On 26 May 2013 22:39, Colin Putney colin@wiresong.com wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered.
cwp, please.
Done!
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know
seandenigris
----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-s-presence-on-GitHub-tp4688328p4690276.html Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 28 May 2013 02:40, Sean P. DeNigris sean@clipperadams.com wrote:
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know
seandenigris
Done!
frank
Am 28.05.2013 um 09:55 schrieb Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com:
On 28 May 2013 02:40, Sean P. DeNigris sean@clipperadams.com wrote:
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know
seandenigris
krono
Best -Tobias
On 28 May 2013 16:08, Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de wrote:
Am 28.05.2013 um 09:55 schrieb Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com:
On 28 May 2013 02:40, Sean P. DeNigris sean@clipperadams.com wrote:
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know
seandenigris
krono
Done!
frank
espinielli thanks! On May 23, 2013 3:33 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
Note that any existing references to https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you to squeak-ci's new home.
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered.
frank
Done!
frank
On 28 May 2013 20:21, Enrico Spinielli enrico.spinielli@gmail.com wrote:
espinielli thanks!
On May 23, 2013 3:33 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
Note that any existing references to https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you to squeak-ci's new home.
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered.
frank
Me too please... kneb139
Ken G. Brown
On 2013-05-28, at 3:00 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:
Done!
frank
On 28 May 2013 20:21, Enrico Spinielli enrico.spinielli@gmail.com wrote:
espinielli thanks!
On May 23, 2013 3:33 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
Note that any existing references to https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you to squeak-ci's new home.
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered.
frank
And
hhzl
please.
On 5/28/13, Ken G. Brown kbrown@mac.com wrote:
Me too please... kneb139
Ken G. Brown
On 2013-05-28, at 3:00 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:
Done!
frank
On 28 May 2013 20:21, Enrico Spinielli enrico.spinielli@gmail.com wrote:
espinielli thanks!
On May 23, 2013 3:33 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
Note that any existing references to https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you to squeak-ci's new home.
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered.
frank
Done, and done.
One thing that I should note is that it may be the case that membership in an organisation is not public by default. Hannes, would you confirm this? So you ought to see that you're a member of squeak-smalltalk, but - if my suspicions are correct - you won't see that kneb139 is.
If that's the case, I'll flip the switches to show membership publically.
frank
On 29 May 2013 00:30, H. Hirzel hannes.hirzel@gmail.com wrote:
And
hhzlplease.
On 5/28/13, Ken G. Brown kbrown@mac.com wrote:
Me too please... kneb139
Ken G. Brown
On 2013-05-28, at 3:00 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:
Done!
frank
On 28 May 2013 20:21, Enrico Spinielli enrico.spinielli@gmail.com wrote:
espinielli thanks!
On May 23, 2013 3:33 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
Note that any existing references to https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you to squeak-ci's new home.
I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered.
frank
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
One thing that I should note is that it may be the case that membership in an organisation is not public by default.
It seems that it's up to each member. At https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk?tab=members I see "11 members", but only 5 other users listed. I also was presented with a "Publicize Membership" button, which I immediately and vigorously pushed ;)
----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-s-presence-on-GitHub-tp4688328p4690627.html Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Done. I see 7 of 11 members now. Ken
On 2013-05-29, at 8:12 AM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
One thing that I should note is that it may be the case that membership in an organisation is not public by default.
It seems that it's up to each member. At https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk?tab=members I see "11 members", but only 5 other users listed. I also was presented with a "Publicize Membership" button, which I immediately and vigorously pushed ;)
Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-s-presence-on-GitHub-tp4688328p4690627.html Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 29 May 2013 15:12, Sean P. DeNigris sean@clipperadams.com wrote:
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
One thing that I should note is that it may be the case that membership in an organisation is not public by default.
It seems that it's up to each member. At https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk?tab=members I see "11 members", but only 5 other users listed. I also was presented with a "Publicize Membership" button, which I immediately and vigorously pushed ;)
I think the organization owner can also dictate the visibility: I see "Conceal membership" and "Publicize membership" buttons, as appropriate, for each member.
frank
On 2013-05-29, at 17:04, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 May 2013 15:12, Sean P. DeNigris sean@clipperadams.com wrote:
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
One thing that I should note is that it may be the case that membership in an organisation is not public by default.
It seems that it's up to each member. At https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk?tab=members I see "11 members", but only 5 other users listed. I also was presented with a "Publicize Membership" button, which I immediately and vigorously pushed ;)
I think the organization owner can also dictate the visibility: I see "Conceal membership" and "Publicize membership" buttons, as appropriate, for each member.
frank
IMHO you should publicize everyone. I see no reason to keep the membership secret.
- Bert -
I see 11 members and a 'conceal' button besides my entry. No objection to be listed publically.
--Hannes
On 5/29/13, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 2013-05-29, at 17:04, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 May 2013 15:12, Sean P. DeNigris sean@clipperadams.com wrote:
Frank Shearar-3 wrote
One thing that I should note is that it may be the case that membership in an organisation is not public by default.
It seems that it's up to each member. At https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk?tab=members I see "11 members", but only 5 other users listed. I also was presented with a "Publicize Membership" button, which I immediately and vigorously pushed ;)
I think the organization owner can also dictate the visibility: I see "Conceal membership" and "Publicize membership" buttons, as appropriate, for each member.
frank
IMHO you should publicize everyone. I see no reason to keep the membership secret.
- Bert -
I do. Any engine of its own invention is at risk of eventually evolving beyond the present paradigm. It's a feature, not a bug!
:D
On May 19, 2013, at 12:17 PM, "Edgar J. De Cleene" edgardec2005@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk.
You believe this???
Edgar
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bert Freudenberg -
Casey Ransberger -
Colin Putney -
David T. Lewis -
Edgar J. De Cleene -
Enrico Spinielli -
Frank Shearar -
H. Hirzel -
Jecel Assumpcao Jr. -
Ken G. Brown -
Levente Uzonyi -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Tobias Pape