We are now talking about things that happened 9 years ago :). In VW, every object is announcer. As Glamour came in Pharo from VW, it was the simpler move strategy.
Indeed, GLMAnnouncer should not exist, but the logic of GLMAnnouncer is quite specific (suspending announcements) to Glamour and we did not find a nice way to make it properly reusable, and that is why it did not get into Announcer. We had a long discussion about this with Igor, and at the time he was guarding Announcements, so nothing was integrated.
Announcement improvement.
I do not understand this part. Beacon was moved under the Pharo umbrella, but its integration was postponed multiple times due to various other external reasons in Pharo that were not under my control. Now, Beacon also came with documentation, and its implementation is smaller and has less concepts than SystemLogger (the main engine has 303 lines of code). I would be very happy to push it, but I do not know what else to do right now :(.
Beacon use.
I will read the code. And ask other people to do the same.
And after we take a decision.
So at the end I want to say that I may prefer that Pharo does not have hyperfancy features that only two people master
and that we (the guy spending time on cleaning) can manage our system.
I have a different opinion.
Think in terms of layers.
Bloc/Brick/GT are tested and documented like this, so we need to have that around.
We will have to check this because even for Pharo we want to avoid to have the Glamour/Annoucement hell around
when you will consider that another project is more important.
I am not sure I see the similarity between GTExample and Announcements. Can you explain?
use of announcement.
I guess that you are referring to the issue "GT-Examples-Roassal2 should not be packaged in GT-Examples #1180”. I think there is a confusion, so I added a comment for that:
https://github.com/moosetechnology/Moose/issues/1180#issuecomment-373904295
Yes but not only.
You see when we introduced Glamour in Pharo. You remember I was against it and you said that
it was only 35 classes and that I could maintain Morphic that was far more complex.
Net result. ***We*** were fighting multiple time with memory leaks. The design is overly complex.
We invested in the memory leaks as well. But, I think it would be a pity to say that the investment in GT had only costs and no benefits :).
This is not what I’m saying but we should take care because you know like me that legacy after a while smashes you.
What we introduce in Pharo should be maintainable by the majority.
- method comments (look at Glamour not a single method comment!!!!!!!!!)
- decent class comments and not just plain shit “this class is abstract”
- tests and not with a super funky system that only one guy understand
- less use of Pragmas
- You see if
I use Statespecs and
you use GTExample and
denis use his testing framework because it is cooler
then
when we improve SUnit (which we will do) then fewer components benefit from it
we have to pay attention to Statespecs, GTExample,….. instead of ONE framework.
I do agree that one framework is important. Now, SUnit is around since decades and did not really change much so I do not think it would be such a bad thing to revisit its usage.
We are planning this. (even if people will cry and complain that we are touching graal code).
GTExample is not only SUnit replacement, but also a way to document and communicate. I would be very happy to have a conversation about it. When I wanted to talk about examples a couple of years ago, there was not much interest for it. So, we went on to do our homework and now have significant case studies that drove significant projects, and now we can have that conversation with more concrete facts around us.
You know what I mean and it depends.
I think that Pharo will get a lot more picky about its components. So We are talking about Pharo 8.0
so you can be prepared. But do not come to tell me that we did not tell it.
Good. We will still continue producing components that are free and available and people will be able to pick them if they want. The cool thing with Pharo getting more modular is that now the cost of people trying things out is smaller so this should raise more interesting debates, which I think is a healthy thing. I really think that Pharo 8.0 will be about massive cleaning up.
So as a community we will have to have a real discussion about Pharo 80
because we will raise the bar and I will push all my voice for that because we cannot continue
like that.
I think that we should set some basic rules such as the tools we want for Pharo development and the quality rules.
I agree.Doru
Stef
Cheers,
Doru
On Mar 17, 2018, at 6:39 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
I would like also to see what is the vision for the future of Moose.
Because we will put some effort on the table but not blindly and I would like to avoid to
throw away months of work.
I would like to know what is the status of Glamour development because iceberg shows that Glamour is buggy.
We also have memory leaks in Pharo because of GT tools and this is super annoying.
I think that there are too many announcers to my personal taste
stef
On 17 Mar 2018, at 18:26, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
On 17 Mar 2018, at 17:42, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Excellent!
Andrei and I allocated next Tuesday to look into migrating the code to GitHub. Can we sync on Discord for this?
Yes it would be nice.
Now tuesday we will have a meeting with Guille and others because for Pharo we can make sure that
we can get exactly the same system to reproduce bugs and not end upi with situation like two weeks ago where we could not get Pharo
opening. So may be the pattern for Pharo can be applied to Moose.
For the new moose I do not want to have one year open session. I’m fed up to have no possibility to go back in the past.
So we should find a solution and a real one. I’m not in the mood to lose my energy on something that
is unmanageable and just a “fuite en avant”.
So may be automatic release every two weeks is a solution. It should not be difficult to git.
I also would like that subprojects are managed nicely and modularly. For example I do not understand why we have Roassal-VW in Moose.
I want to make sure that we can get moose without GTExample also.
We should have a pattern for subcomponents and projects.
PetitParser
SmaCC
Roassal
XML
…
Here we see already that there are difference. SmaCC easy it is external.
I will start to migrate (I cleaned RoelTyper).
Stef
On Mar 17, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi guys
We started to have a look at the bug entries of Moose on github.
We will start to migrate Moose to github. We will have to think how to manage this.
Projects
Subprojects
Baseline migration
I would like to enforce the following:
- the feature todos should not be managed in the bug tracker. Trello is good for this.
- Now todo related to current situation: such as remove empty class, split package should at least the entry should be tagged with todo.
- close any bug entry that does not have a description how to reproduce it.
Stef
--------------------------------------------
Stéphane Ducasse
http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr
http://www.synectique.eu / http://www.pharo.org
03 59 35 87 52
Assistant: Julie Jonas
FAX 03 59 57 78 50
TEL 03 59 35 86 16
S. Ducasse - Inria
40, avenue Halley,
Parc Scientifique de la Haute Borne, Bât.A, Park Plaza
Villeneuve d'Ascq 59650
France
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--------------------------------------------
Stéphane Ducasse
http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr
http://www.synectique.eu / http://www.pharo.org
03 59 35 87 52
Assistant: Julie Jonas
FAX 03 59 57 78 50
TEL 03 59 35 86 16
S. Ducasse - Inria
40, avenue Halley,
Parc Scientifique de la Haute Borne, Bât.A, Park Plaza
Villeneuve d'Ascq 59650
France
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--------------------------------------------
Stéphane Ducasse
http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr
http://www.synectique.eu / http://www.pharo.org
03 59 35 87 52
Assistant: Julie Jonas
FAX 03 59 57 78 50
TEL 03 59 35 86 16
S. Ducasse - Inria
40, avenue Halley,
Parc Scientifique de la Haute Borne, Bât.A, Park Plaza
Villeneuve d'Ascq 59650
France
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Beauty is where we see it."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--------------------------------------------
Stéphane Ducasse
http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr
http://www.synectique.eu / http://www.pharo.org
03 59 35 87 52
Assistant: Julie Jonas
FAX 03 59 57 78 50
TEL 03 59 35 86 16
S. Ducasse - Inria
40, avenue Halley,
Parc Scientifique de la Haute Borne, Bât.A, Park Plaza
Villeneuve d'Ascq 59650
France
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
--www.tudorgirba.comwww.feenk.com"Obvious things are difficult to teach."_______________________________________________Moose-dev mailing listMoose-dev@list.inf.unibe.chhttps://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev