Squeakfoundation March 2003

squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org

27 participants
66 discussions

Re: [Squeakfoundation]re: Outstanding 3.4 bugs?
by Daniel Vainsencher 04 Mar '03

04 Mar '03

I agree this is the most important bug that's up for discussion about 3.4. I'm not sure it's worse than the 3.2 bug we're trying to solve (public release doesn't include SM). Opinions? Suggestion - make 3.5 a very short release, consisting mainly of getting as many fixes in as we can, and giving them a proper testing. It's an opportunity for us Guides to warm up at doing the whole process ourselves. I'm talking about a time scale of 1 month total - 2 weeks alpha, 1 week beta, 1 week gamma, release. We start with specific, very doable goals (maybe even decide in advance a prioritized list of fixes we want to get in, not trying to catch up with everything that's up for harvesting), and basically spill them all into the update stream on day one, with the rest of the time for integration. Fixes that aren't ready for integration (meaning, posted tested, and reviewed by someone) by the end of week 1 will wait for 3.6. Doug, guys, do you think this is reasonable? desirable? Daniel Bert Freudenberg <bert(a)isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > Am Freitag, 28.02.03 um 02:01 Uhr schrieb Doug Way: > > > > Craig Latta wrote: > >> > >> Hi Ned-- > >> > >>> Are we going to do anything about them? > >> > >> I think we should address them in 3.5, not 3.4. In the > >> absence of other > >> open issues, I think we should release 3.4. > > > > I was going to agree with Craig here, these bugs alone don't seem > > serious > > enough to postpone the 3.4 release. > > Are you going to include the other things that already have fixes? > > The "release" will be the one newbies use. They might not know how to > update, or even if they do, they might hesitate to do so (it is > somewhat scary to change your tires while running at 100 mph, isn't > it?). > > For example, I consider project publishing to be extremely important > for newbies and it has a bug we ran into, which fortunately was fixed > by Nishihara Satoshi > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/squeak/message/54616). I tried with > 3.4gammaOne and the fix is not in there. > > -- Bert > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

4 3

Re: [UPDATES] 3.4 is now final
by Bruce ONeel 04 Mar '03

04 Mar '03

Excellent! I'll build the bundles later today and upload them (thanks to Marcus Denker for the MacOS one) and then send Ted the updated download page. When I build the bundles I was going to grab the latest stable VMs. If anyone who builds VMs wants something different email me. I was also going to build bundles for MacOS (Carbon), Windows, and the unix systems which Ian has prebuilt VMs for. Are there any other bundles that should be built? Thanks to all for all the hard work! cheers bruce Doug Way <dway(a)riskmetrics.com> wrote: > > Hello all, 3.4 is now finalized! > > I just issued an update offering the choice of moving a 3.4gamma image > to 3.4, or to 3.5alpha. (Technically, the choice was already offered > in an earlier update when 3.4gamma was created, but since the two > update streams contain the same fixes, I offered the choice again.) > > A 3.4 final image/changes/readme .zip file is available on the ftp > site, here: > > ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu/Smalltalk/Squeak/3.4/ > > Please give this a quick test if you have a chance, just to make sure > there are no major problems with the image. A major problem roughly > meaning: any significant problem which was *not* in 3.4gammaOne. > > This image should be identical to 3.4gammaOne, except for incorporating > the last update (5170), and some content changes in the Welcome... > window, which were discussed on the SqF list (on Feb. 4 & 8). > > The 3.4 release is still not complete in the sense that the squeak.org > downloads page has not been updated to point to the appropriate 3.4 > bundles. When that is done, that will be the true "release date" for > 3.4. Allowing a few days to make sure there are no major problems with > this image, and also to create the release bundles with VMs, I think we > should shoot for updating squeak.org in 3-4 days. > > Anyway, I'd like to thank Scott Wallace for spending time helping me > get the update stream going, and with all of the release details. And, > of course, thanks to all of SqC for "releasing" Squeak to the Guides > and the community at large! > > - Doug Way

1 0

Re: [Squeakfoundation]re: release prioritization (was "ClassBuilder problem")
by Daniel Vainsencher 04 Mar '03

04 Mar '03

Hannes raised an important question - where does time pressure come from? He also raised another important question - why didn't we meet our stated goals? I think these are important enough, they deserve answering, not arguing about them. Time pressure comes from the nature and purpose of releases. One can say that any image at all of Squeak, with any combinations of changesets loaded, is a version of Squeak. What separates a release from any other version is that it's visible. All of it's natural and most important qualities come simply from that: it's rarity causes it to be visible. It's important to remember that people measure the quality of an implementation mostly by it's releases - not by fixes/packages that can be loaded, because probably no two pair of people will apply the same ones. This is meant to change when we have configurations, but that's the way it is now. What that means, is that right now, people measure us by 3.2. Most everyone on the list knows of SM, and loaded it for their 3.2, or just uses 3.4, which is nicely stable enough to load anything that doesn't touch the core as Island or Traits do. So we don't suffer much from the delay of this release. Or rather, not directly. Because newbies surely do. To newbies, loading anything into Squeak is still quite complicated, and the first thing they're likely to be told is not to use the official release, but a development release. That's a sign of a project that's not releasing often enough. If your production and your development are very different, you stop feeling the pains of the production, and you stop being aware of what your product is like, and you focus on the wrong things. If we have bugs (and we have more than just those handful that were mentioned), the solution isn't to delay the release, it is to have SUnit tests, use them, and keep them green. Think longer term - it's not about making a perfect release - that'll always be a good excuse to delay a little more. It's about having many releases, at quite frequent, predictable intervals, that are getting better and better, and keeping production and development close. That'll give us long term properties that will keep Squeak getting better. And no, I don't promise to never break anything that's worked before. First, nobody's ever promised that, neither the previous regime, nor any other maintainer except maybe Knuth. Second, the main technical benefit of an open source project is parallelized testing/debugging. But that is completely dependent on people actually doing it. Third, to promise strictly monotone-improving releases, I'd need SUnit tests with every change that gets submitted. Hmm :-) Now, why didn't all of the refactorings get in? well, there's a page on squeakfoundation swiki, devoted to the status of the intended refactorings. They're almost all done and waiting for (come on, I'm sure you know - ) testing. When people want to see them get in, they'll start testing, and as soon as people tell their authors that they load, or they don't load, or there's this problem or that or it's all very nice, we can actually do the work of clearing them to get in the image. In 3.5, of course. Why didn't we meet our goals? because the goals we stated and the actions of the wider community were not in line. I'm not shocked - this is a community, not an army unit. Also, the new "regime" is pretty new, so us and said community are still getting used to each other. Having alot of these releases, a time when emotions run high and soul searching is popular, will make the adaptation go faster. Daniel Hannes Hirzel <hannes.hirzel.squeaklist(a)bluewin.ch> wrote: > Roel Wuyts <roel.wuyts(a)iam.unibe.ch> wrote: > > Somebody needs to decide what is a release and what's get in there, and > > it was decided that these were the Guides. I trust them to do an > > excellent job at this, that is why they are responsible. I can imagine > > that there is some 'bigger plan' for which they want to have this > > release. The question for me is: 'what is this bigger plan'. If it is > > only that it was promised to have a new release by a certain time, then > > I agree with you that we can wait. But I guess the plan for 3.4 was to > > have SM up and running, and that is also important to get out so that > > everybody can enjoy it. > > Yes, adding SM and not breaking existing things. > > > >From http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/79 > <citation> > 3.4 -- The main purpose of this release is to create an up to date, > viable version, that's a good starting point to making Squeak more > modular and it's development more decentralized. > > Changes: > - Includes non-modules related updates from 3.3a, including the dynamic > filelist services refactoring. > - An option to load the SqueakMap package catalog and the base Package > Loader from the net. > - A dynamic open menu so packages can now register there and become > first class applications. > - Refactorings making various parts of the image easily removable. See > Modularizing the Squeak image for the plan and status. > - Various other fixes have been included. > > Release is tentatively set to end of 2002. > </citation> > > > Regarding "Refactoring making various packages easily removable": > > There is just Balloon3DRemoval and GamesRemoval. I do not consider this > goal is met. > > > And breaking an important thing and not including the fix is surely not > good stewardship as well. > > > Again: Where does this time pressure at the expense of quality come > from? > > > Cheers > Hannes > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

4 3

re: release prioritization
by Hannes Hirzel 04 Mar '03

04 Mar '03

Hi Goran and all goran.hultgren(a)bluefish.se wrote: > > And: A list of open issues and major known bugs is surely a useful tool > > for guiding a development process. > > Indeed. Would you mind setting one up? I have made offers earlier in > this regard but will keep my focus on SM. (Hint: The guides aren't SqC. > We are not intended to do the work *for* the community.) > I'm interested in looking at your offers. It would help me if you could post the links to them. A quick look (10 min) at the titles your last 300 posts of this list does not show anything like that. (including http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation) And the list on http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/88 is not terribly maintained. Last change 19-DEC-02. How do you think volunteers can notice possible tasks they could help if they don't preceive them? We are not computers. Just writing something in the body of an email somewhere does not get noticed. BTW The high number of your post shows an incredible energy and enthusiasm. Thanks a lot! But wouldn't it be an idea for every 20th email you write to update *one* swiki page on www.squeakfoundation.org and point people to them from time to time (e.g. once every month)? So much energy / knowhow and person-hours are available for bringing Squeak foward, but for reasons I'm not yet fully aware of a lot of this energy dissipates unused because of poor follow ups. -- Hannes P.S. Perhaps somebody could write an opportunity statement regarding this. I'll try to make up my mind of this as well.

3 3

3.4 is now final
by Raymond Asselin 04 Mar '03

04 Mar '03

Sorry I tried to redirect to some squeakers not on the list and made a mistake Raymond A.

1 0

re: release prioritization
by Hannes Hirzel 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

Hello Craig Craig Latta <craig.latta(a)netjam.org> wrote: > > Hi Hannes-- > > > > > Not having a proper test culture in Squeak leads us to have this > > > > kind of funny discussions. > > > > > > Perhaps you could elaborate as to what you consider a proper > > > test culture. > > > > An example of an emerging test culture > > > > > "Brent Vukmer" <bvukmer(a)blackboard.com> wrote: > > > I installed the MetaClassBuilderFix SAR in a 3.4gamma image, > > > installed the ClassBuilder test suite, > > > and then ran the ClassBuilder test suite > > > -- 3 out of 3 tests passed. > > Indeed, Great! You got the message about tests ;-) Let's move on to the next topic >but to what extent should particular tests delay a particular > release? I think that's the main issue here. > > > thanks, > > -C > Excellent question! IMHO the main issue is that if I look at http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/70 I see the names of the guides: * Doug Way * Daniel Vainsencher * Ned Konz * Craig Latta * Göran Hultgren * Tim Rowledge Then I click on the link 'Release Plan' (http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/79) Then I read 3.4 -- The main purpose of this release is to create an up to date, viable version, that's a good starting point to making Squeak more modular and it's development more decentralized. Changes: - Includes non-modules related updates from 3.3a, including the dynamic filelist services refactoring. - An option to load the SqueakMap package catalog and the base Package Loader from the net. - A dynamic open menu so packages can now register there and become first class applications. - Refactorings making various parts of the image easily removable. See Modularizing the Squeak image for the plan and status. - Various other fixes have been included. Release is tentatively set to end of 2002. ------ Now a question everybody who is looking at your work would come up with: Are these goals met and if yes by which criteria is this evaluated. You have put five points on this list. What do you have to say about them at the end of February? Postponing an issue is fully a viable option if there are important new reasons coming up. This has to be discussed and communicated. And: A list of open issues and major known bugs is surely a useful tool for guiding a development process. I do not see any links on the above mentioned pages. In the SqC area for various reasons Dan Ingalls used to be the "development process" (chief programmer approach). Because of his long experience he just took care of a lot of things. In the post SqC area the process should be made more explicit. We have all these nice tools and communication aids (mailing lists, Swikis / even world wide phone calls are accessible for many) - why not use them? I'm hoping that this stimulates you to not soley focus on schedule issues. I really recommend you to (re)read the excellent write-up by Daniel Vainsencher about the nature of releases http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/squeak/1555651 (Email from today). Regards and happy Squeaking! Hannes P.S. My emphasis for having a proper (not perfect!) 3.4 release is motivated by my fears it might be the base for further development for a rather long time. This is fed by the fact that on the release plan (http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/79) there is no single sentence about 3.5 not to speak of 3.6 and 3.7.

2 1

Re: [Squeakfoundation]re: release prioritization (was "ClassBuilder problem")
by Hannes Hirzel 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

Roel Wuyts <roel.wuyts(a)iam.unibe.ch> wrote: > Somebody needs to decide what is a release and what's get in there, and > it was decided that these were the Guides. I trust them to do an > excellent job at this, that is why they are responsible. I can imagine > that there is some 'bigger plan' for which they want to have this > release. The question for me is: 'what is this bigger plan'. If it is > only that it was promised to have a new release by a certain time, then > I agree with you that we can wait. But I guess the plan for 3.4 was to > have SM up and running, and that is also important to get out so that > everybody can enjoy it. Yes, adding SM and not breaking existing things. >From http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/79 <citation> 3.4 -- The main purpose of this release is to create an up to date, viable version, that's a good starting point to making Squeak more modular and it's development more decentralized. Changes: - Includes non-modules related updates from 3.3a, including the dynamic filelist services refactoring. - An option to load the SqueakMap package catalog and the base Package Loader from the net. - A dynamic open menu so packages can now register there and become first class applications. - Refactorings making various parts of the image easily removable. See Modularizing the Squeak image for the plan and status. - Various other fixes have been included. Release is tentatively set to end of 2002. </citation> Regarding "Refactoring making various packages easily removable": There is just Balloon3DRemoval and GamesRemoval. I do not consider this goal is met. And breaking an important thing and not including the fix is surely not good stewardship as well. Again: Where does this time pressure at the expense of quality come from? Cheers Hannes

4 3

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Collecting tests?
by Daniel Vainsencher 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

And how do you build that image? using a loading script. If you have loading scripts, why not have them in SM, to be shared by all? Dependencies are not that far off... Daniel Marcus Denker <marcus(a)ira.uka.de> wrote: > (For the 3.5 release we could tink about a scheme where we have a > "base image" (as much removed as possible) and a "release image" > (An image with most of the functionality as today, but build from > installing packages into the base image). > > With such a scheme we could start taking Squeak apart even without > having to wait for SqueakMap supporting dependencies and virtual > packages (aka Distributions). > > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker marcus(a)ira.uka.de -- Squeak! http://squeak.de > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

2 1

RE: [Squeakfoundation]Collecting tests?
by Brent Vukmer 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

I posted the "Kernel-Tests-ClassBuilder" tests to SqueakMap. I think it would be better to have tests in package-size chunks, like that. Goran, how about adding a "Tests" category to SqueakMap? Marcus, you could be the Steward of that whole category. That would be A Very Good Thing. -----Original Message----- From: Ned Konz [mailto:ned@bike-nomad.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:06 AM To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Collecting tests? On Friday 28 February 2003 04:08 am, Marcus Denker wrote: > Question: Would it make sense to start collecting tests > for the base image? As opposed to misplacing them? Of course it would. > What I have in mind is a SqueakMap Package that contains > all tests that get posted to the list. Just as a kind > of ad-hoc facility until better things are established. That sounds like a great idea. Do you want to maintain this? Thanks, -- Ned Konz http://bike-nomad.com GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE _______________________________________________ Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

6 7

re: release prioritization (was "ClassBuilder problem")
by Craig Latta 03 Mar '03

03 Mar '03

Colin writes: > I think it would be worth delaying the release of 3.4 to include this > fix. Having easy-to-install packages for Traits and Islands would be > very beneficial. The more people can play around with and exercise > that code, the better. I don't think that's a convincing rationale for inclusion in 3.4. The 3.4 release is a vehicle for SqueakMap. I think only problems which have a catastrophic effect on a newcomer's ability to use SqueakMap should delay 3.4. Ned writes (on the Foundation list): > ...since Andreas just posted the ClassBuilder fix, I'm thinking that > may be worth including and postponing the release by a few days for > people to test. Why? (And I don't use question marks lightly in this message, since I know they could cause more delay. :) > Since I'm doing that, I could also perhaps include Ned's recent > ArchiveViewer fix, since I've looked at that and its seems > straightforward and is a somewhat important fix. (: I don't think "somewhat important" cuts it at this release stage. Instead, I think it's better to weigh the results of leaving something out, rather than of including it. My recollection of our group discussions at OOPSLA, in November 2002, were that we would take 3.2, add SqueakMap support to it, and release it as 3.4. It is now February 2003. This surprises me, even given our history. :) I think we should release 3.4 now, and defer all outstanding available fixes into the 3.5a stream (subject to harvester approval). In our current situation, I think anyone likely to encounter the bugs described recently will be able to get them easily from the update stream. In the meantime, newcomers will have easier access to SqueakMap sooner. I think it's time to release. thanks, -C -- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist craig(a)netjam.org www.netjam.org/resume Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

3 3

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 March 2003