[Vm-dev] Fwd: [Pharo-project] Squeaksource.com (was: [squeak-dev] Re: Addition to "About Pharo" dialog)

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Wed Aug 31 23:05:15 UTC 2011


On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:06 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>wrote:

>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:19:43AM +0200, Alexander Lazarevi?? wrote:
> >
> > When it looked like most of global open source Smalltalk development came
> to
> > a halt last weekend because of squeaksource.com being down for about two
> > days, I asked about moving vital parts like vmmaker to source.squeak.org.
> > This would take some load from squeaksource.com (even if it is until
> there
> > is a better alternative) and could make commits to vmmaker faster.
> > As suggested I move the discussion to vm-dev.
> >
> > Alex
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
> > Date: 2011/8/27
> > Subject: [Pharo-project] Squeaksource.com (was: [squeak-dev] Re: Addition
> to
> > "About Pharo" dialog)
> > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <
> > squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > Cc: Pharo-project at lists.gforge.inria.fr
> >
> >
> > On 26.08.2011, at 18:14, Alexander Lazarevi?? wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't it make also good sense to move some vital stuff like the
> vmmaker
> > repo to this destination? I know this will be controversial, but the
> current
> > situation is bad at best.
> >
> >
> > That would be a good idea IMHO - you might ask what the other VM
> developers
> > think of the idea on the vm-dev list.
>
> +1
>
> I would support moving VMMaker from squeaksource.com to source.squeak.org.
> If we do so, I think we should have explicit agreement from the core VM
> maintainers - Ian, Andreas and Esteban - as well as from Eliot and Igor,
> who are most actively involved in new development. Approval of the Squeak
> board would also be in order.
>

I have no objection.  Just give me a heads up :)


>
> I do not think that source.squeak.org should become a general purpose
> repository, but VMMaker represents an essential part of Squeak
> (including Pharo, Cuis and others) that should be maintained such
> that it can be used by anyone as if it were a standard part of
> the image. For that reason, maintaining the VMMaker package on
> source.squeak.org makes sense to me in the long term, and of
> course it addresses some short terms issues with squeaksource also.
>
> We have to recognize that in the last couple of years there has
> been a huge increase in activity in the VMMaker project, and there
> is some risk of this getting out of hand in the future as various
> projects evolve and diverge from Squeak itself. But from my point
> of view we have been quite successful at managing this so far
> (albeit in a rather ad-hoc way), and I believe that there is
> enough good will and competence in the Squeak/Pharo community
> to deal with issues and possible conflicting goals in the future.
> So as long as the key maintainers and developers are comfortable
> with this, I see no problem with hosting VMMaker on source.squeak.org.
>
> To be clear, I do *not* think that we should move VMMaker
> solely because of reliability problems on squeaksource. That
> is a problem that needs to be solved in some other way, and
> moving key packages off squeaksource does not contribute to
> a solution. However, I do think that moving VMMaker to
> source.squeak.org is a good thing to do in its own right, and
> I support it on that basis.
>
> Dave
>
>


-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20110831/478ae311/attachment.htm


More information about the Vm-dev mailing list