> 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

Eliot,

I did participate in the bootstrap, I thought I was the first to do  
so, excepting perhaps Andreas.

Bob built an LPF image, with MC1.5 etc, on your first 3.10-closures  
image, you can download it from ftp.squeak.org and I requested  
feedback or suggestions as to what to do next with it to get the  
debugger working and got none.

> (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,

I did not choose to disengage, as I have stated several times, I had  
no choice, and I still have no choice.

Perhaps a timeline will explain.

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.

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.

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)
it ended it right there, not a single line of code has been written  
for Bob beyond that day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> and what would be the point of maintaining an evolving package for  
> old images?

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.

Cuis is based upon Squeak 3.7
Spoon is based upon 3.2
Doesn't dabble db still use 3.7 images as its workhorses.

Gjallar was on 3.8 up until a year or 2 ago, when Installer allowed it  
to move to 3.10

> 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.

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.

For example, the harrier jump jet nozzle models are written in PDP11  
basic, limited to 9999 lines of code, they still have pdp11's

> (& 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).
>
> 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".
>
> Whatever.  Looks like you failed over two years to make a new release

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.

The task we wrote a proposal for to the board was for a "continuous  
integration PROCESS", NOT an image.

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

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

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.

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.

It was pretty disingenuous to scupper all that work without even a  
discussion, or consideration of the implications.

> , got upset when people finally lost patience

Like I said the board had cancelled 3.x already.

> and started work again, and that you lack the objectivity to realise  
> your part in your misfortune.

No I don't lack objectivity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>  You were the one who wouldn't release Bob open source.

I only threatened that in a moment of complete disgust and abject  
poverty, wondering where I would get my next meal from.

Check the repositories and the licences. I have mentioned several  
times that Bob is in the repos and all repos are open.

> I think I'm pissing in the breeze.  Surprise me if I'm wrong.

Nope you are not wrong, because I can't do anything, like I say I have  
no choice.

Keith

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100122/c16e1a88/attachment.htm