Squeakfoundation May 2002

squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org

6 participants
5 discussions

Status of Stable Squeak?
by Roger Vossler 28 May '02

28 May '02

Hi Gang, The last version of StSq that I have is SWTBase0_5 and SWTDev0_5. Is there anything more recent than this? The reason that I ask is that the above version seems to have been released some time ago. Cheers, Roger.....

2 1

Re: [SqF][Modules] IMPORTANT: Progress report and changes
by goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se 21 May '02

21 May '02

Henrik Gedenryd <h.gedenryd(a)open.ac.uk> wrote: [SNIP] > >From the beginning this has been meant as a collaborative project. Dozens > and dozens of people on this list have talked about how important this > project is. Still, contributions have been minimal. By contributions I mean > stuff that has the quality to go into the update stream. There are a few reasons but I understand your frustration. > Recently I also heard veteran Squeakers say that they intentionally take a > wait-and-see approach, hoping that "problems will go away". I know of no > facility that makes problems go away by themselves. Hopefully this was not meant as it sounds. > I also see people posting lists of things they want, with no commitment to > contribute them. Who do you expect to write this code? I think I know the > answer to that. > > Even though I've been very clear that I only have minor opportunities to > work more on this, people seem to expect me to do all the work. Let me state > this again: I will not do any more work on the modules. > > To make this clear, I resign from the SqF modules project now with immediate > effect. Hopefully this will make the point to people that I will not drive > this forward in the future. Do not expect me to make any more contributions. > If you want this to move forward you have to do the work. I will not do it. > I have already done much more than I committed to do when I started. I have > no interest in programming modules, other than that I want to use the > results, much like others here. I do not enjoy doing this work. I especially > do not like the slandering and backstabbing that has occurred, sometimes > from people who I thought more of. It is time for the rest of the Squeak > community to put their money where their mouths are, or where they have been > in the past at least. > > I believe that the result of this will be that no further contributions are > made, and the effort will die, in spite of all the promises and all the > talk. Please prove me wrong. > > Henrik Henrik, you have done a great job and I don't think anyone will hold any grudge against you for stepping down! And I don't think it will die - people are joining up slowly, but they are (it seems to me) joining up. The problem with this kindof stuff is that it is HARD. I have been looking through parts of the code and I consider myself to be of "normal competence" and even though the code is good it can be quite hard to be able to contribute. I am just terribly grateful for the start you have given us. Personally I realized that I could do more good if I implemented a "higher layer" (SqueakMap) which is meant to complement the module system. Then of course - many of us could help out with "tool hacking" - fixing up the browsers etc so that most module operations are accessible - and I think it will happen. Perhaps 3.2 needs to be "closed" so that all us developers move our focus over to 3.3 - then we will HAVE to learn and contribute. That was as I remember it part of the plan - get it out there and force people to deal with it. Btw - could someone present a short status on the 3.3a image in regards with modularization? (Personally I might be of the feeling that it is better to focus on the tools/modules system and get that working instead of doing the module splitting effort. Hey, I could even live with this strategy: 1. Create a new more or less "empty" developer image that is "squeeky clean" :-) modulewise. Note: I don't even know if this is possible/easy to do. 2. Freeze the current 3.3a image as it is. 3. Cut out and move over modules into the clean image, one by one. Yes, it is a drastic idea but hey - it's just an idea. Perhaps it is superdumb. It would be a sortof "cleansing process" in which the modules that people really need/want will probably be moved over and other stuff that people are not that interested in anymore (don't ask me) will tend to lag behind, but so what? regards, Göran PS. Why is Andreas calling you Hendrik? :-) DS

1 0

[SqF][Modules] IMPORTANT: Progress report and changes
by Henrik Gedenryd 18 May '02

18 May '02

This is a long overdue report about the (non-)progress of the modules project. When the modules code I had written went into the update stream in January, I made it clear that I would have limited time to work on this project in the future, and that it was and is ESSENTIAL that people contribute. (By January, the code had already been lying around without progress since early November.)

2 1

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Image Builder
by danielv＠netvision.net.il 12 May '02

12 May '02

That's what many people want. The problem is that without modularity, there's no way to make the pieces work independently. Remove Celeste, and the TheWorldMenu does a walkback. StableSqueak and the Modularity work in 3.3a both address the same problem. Daniel Roger Vossler <rvossler(a)qwest.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I downloaded SWTBase0_5.image and SWTDev0_5.image along with the > associated > changes and source files from the SqF web site. I'm running this with > the Squeak3.2.7Beta3 > VM on a G4 PowerBook and OSX 10.1.3. Once I figured out how to use the > little bootstrap > program, I was able to use the Script Manager and the Refactoring > Browser. Very nice. > > SqF has something called VMMaker for building VMs. After digging around > in the > SqueakBase folder that came with the distribution, it dawned on me that > having a little > program called ImageBuilder that could assemble a specific image, > oriented toward > a specific application, problem domain, etc., from all of the stuff in > SqueakBase would > be very nice to have, thus avoiding all of the problems associated with > namespaces, > modularity, frameworks, and the like. Is this idea too simple? Have I > missed something? > > Cheers, Roger..... > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

2 1

Image Builder
by Roger Vossler 11 May '02

11 May '02

Hi, I downloaded SWTBase0_5.image and SWTDev0_5.image along with the associated changes and source files from the SqF web site. I'm running this with the Squeak3.2.7Beta3 VM on a G4 PowerBook and OSX 10.1.3. Once I figured out how to use the little bootstrap program, I was able to use the Script Manager and the Refactoring Browser. Very nice. SqF has something called VMMaker for building VMs. After digging around in the SqueakBase folder that came with the distribution, it dawned on me that having a little program called ImageBuilder that could assemble a specific image, oriented toward a specific application, problem domain, etc., from all of the stuff in SqueakBase would be very nice to have, thus avoiding all of the problems associated with namespaces, modularity, frameworks, and the like. Is this idea too simple? Have I missed something? Cheers, Roger.....

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Squeakfoundation May 2002