[squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] cant squeak map

Stéphane Ducasse stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
Thu Mar 12 12:34:03 UTC 2009


> Hi!
>
> (being the creator of SM I can't resist this thread on Pharo-list...)
>
> Yes, I am cross-posting, so sue me.

No we are not like that :)
>>
>
> The above is not really a problem with SM "as a tool" but with the
> contents of SM.

Indeed.

> And as I predicted a few years back, SS (Squeaksource)
> and PU (package universes) are indeed competing with SM and would  
> (as it
> did) cause us to get a fragmentation. I am not blaiming anyone, but  
> I do
> see that as the primary cause of "data rot".
>
> Since a lot of projects use SCM hosting as available on SS they don't
> bother taking the extra step in keeping entries at SM fresh.

Come on. The publish was broken for years.

> Understandable but still a pity we couldn't create some harmony there.
>
> PU was a clear "fork" of SM (not the codebase but the use case) adding
> dependencies. I still think it was sad that people couldn't instead  
> help
> out in SM making it better.

Indeed

>> Sorry guys. clean SM first if you want it to be a credible  
>> alternative.
>
> This last line is... odd. What do you mean with "guys"?

anybody.
If somebody wants to have sm on pharo then they should clean the  
database.

> And why do you think "cleaning it" would solve something? I am not  
> saying that cleaning
> is not needed - just saying that cleaning is not solving the real
> problem. We can't seriously tell people to maintain their packages  
> in 3
> different places (SS, PU, SM) IMHO.
>
> I am interested in creating a new SM3 that can replace both PU and SM
> and that plays very well with SS installations (there are more than  
> one
> even though squeaksource.com is the most important one) and can use
> Deltastreams. By "replace" I mean that SM3 of course should simply
> replace current SM but also that it could possibly "auto mirror"
> packages from SS installations making them available on SM3 *without  
> any
> extra effort at all*.

I think that the key point is that somebody is responsible for  
publishing package in
a public ready to use Universe/Version

> If SM3 also covers the functionality that PU has
> (dependencies etc) then perhaps we could migrate over to it from PU.  
> Or
> again, we could make SM3 be able to "auto mirror" PUs, but that  
> would be
> less optimal I think.

Ok for me

> Yes, I am picking up Deltastreams, have fixed lots of broken tests  
> over
> the last few days and have read up on Matthew's code. I think DS is a
> really promising technology that can open up new nice tools, and still
> not compete head on with MC/MC2. Instead it should hopefully replace
> changesets and form a nice complement to MC/MC2.

I'm interested into that too.

> Finally, I have always felt that SM should work in as many Squeak  
> images
> as possible - and Pharo is one of them of course. I don't care if  
> Pharo
> decides to not have SM as a "first class" citizen - as long as it  
> can be
> loaded into Pharo, and I will try to help out with ensuring that it  
> can
> - hopefully that is an effort that Pharo developers appreciate. (?)

Sure!

Stef
>
>
> regards, Göran
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project at lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list