[squeak-dev] [ANN] A new anniversary without 3.10

[Ken Causey]

Unfortunately I have a social engagement this evening but will try to
check back in with you when that is over in 4 or 5 hours.

Ken

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 14:49 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

> >>>>> "Ken" == Ken Causey <ken@...> writes:
>
>
> Ken> In the interest of expediency I'm willing to do as much as possible
> Ken> myself if Edgar wouldn't be insulted by my further interference.  I can
> Ken> take care of steps 1 (with assistance from VM developers), 2, 3, and
> Ken> maybe even 4 although I will probably need to coordinate with Janko or
> Ken> other webteam members.  And I guess I could even take care of 5 if I
> Ken> remember what it is. ;)
>
> In the interest of expediency, please do as you've suggested.  The plan
> looks great.  We can tidy up anything else when the next wave of complaint
> comes in.
>
>

[Germán Arduino]

2008/5/7, Keith Hodges <keith_hodges@...>:

Monticello 1.5 can't load FFI, so I can't use the squeak-dev images
but the base 3.10 images are fine. Loading Exupery is fine, building
an Exupery development image on top of squeak-dev breaks.

Bryce
 

MC1.5 can load FFI,

Installer install: 'Packages'.
Installer sake addPackage: 'FFI'; install.

Keith

I'm a bit confused (I admit don't time in the last months to be on all the details) but, why now all must be installed with "Installer" ? SqueakMap continue working? And what is the role of Universes?

Any short clarification would be appreciated. I'm using the 3.10u3 (http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5918) without problems but also understand that on such moment (when announced) something remaing pending about Universes.

Germán.

[Germán Arduino]

On my 3.10 image works ok. (is the one named u3, from http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5918).

2008/5/7, Keith Hodges <keith_hodges@...>:

Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

I announce today 3.10 pass another month into Limbo.

 

but DateAndTime now seconds still returns a fraction.

who abandoned who?

Keith

--
Germán S. Arduino
http://www.arsol.biz
http://www.arsol.net

[Andreas Raab]

Ken Causey wrote:
> I wonder if we aren't having a little terminology trouble here.  On the
> one hand the term 'release manager' in most communities indicates a job
> held across multiple releases, perhaps for years.  However the closest
> we have come to that in Squeak in recent years is someone who takes
> responsibility for a given release, or maybe for two in a row.

I actually do mean both. There is something very odd if (assuming that
Edgar is the manager for the 3.10 release) he has to ask for what's
missing. If he is responsible for the release should declare it released
and basically demand the web site to be updated.

And if some people feel that the release isn't finished then clearly
we're lacking understanding about what it means to finish a release and
some continuity would be helpful.

So from either point of view the current situation isn't satisfying.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

>
> The closest available candidates for 3.10 are Ralph Johnson and Edgar
> himself.
>
> However perhaps Andreas was meaning to spur a discussion of having a
> more permanent release manager.  I'm going to assume that was the case
> and offer my opinion.
>
> I'm all for someone volunteering to be a long term release manager.
> However the pool of available reasonable applicants seems rather small.
> I would like to suggest a compromise measure.  Let's continue as we have
> been with a new release team for each release (possibly built from
> previous release teams) with a release team leader specific to each
> release.
>
> However I would like to suggest that the Board pick one of its members
> to serve in a supervisory capacity over the entire release process.  I
> don't see this as a job with much work most of the time.  It would
> largely be composed of watching the progress of current release(s),
> offering assistance where needed, and prodding the various involved
> parties when necessary.
>
> Now the Board technically only serves for a single year at a time and so
> this 'release supervisor' could change from year to year.  But it's not
> commonly the case that the Board membership changes completely each
> year, so in practice it is possible for such a person to serve in this
> capacity for multiple years and versions.
>
> Ken
>
> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 13:29 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Raab <andreas.raab@...> writes:
>> Andreas> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>> This would be my question as well.  What *is* missing?
>> Andreas> Short answer? The release manager.
>>
>> OK, but that release manager will be asking the same question
>> I'm now asking.  So how do I get the answer?
>>
>> If Edgar is complaining, there must be a specific thing he thinks is missing.
>> That's what I want to know, so I can come up to speed on the issue.
>>
>> In other words, how do we know we aren't done with 3.10 yet?
>>
>> And yes, this *is* your elected board trying to get a handle on the problem.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>

[Andreas Raab]

Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Raab <andreas.raab@...> writes:
>
> Andreas> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>> This would be my question as well.  What *is* missing?
>
> Andreas> Short answer? The release manager.
>
> OK, but that release manager will be asking the same question
> I'm now asking.  So how do I get the answer?

To be clear, I think the release manager should know what a proper
Squeak release looks like. Otherwise how does he know what he's working
towards? But anyway, the pieces that are missing are:

1) A Mac VM: John has said that the latest that should be used is this:

   ftp://ftp.smalltalkconsulting.com/Squeak%203.8.18beta3U.app.zip

Can someone just copy it into http://ftp.squeak.org/3.10/mac ?

2) Pre-packaged versions. For easy installation there should be
per-platform packages like these:
   http://ftp.squeak.org/3.9/win/Squeak3.9-win32.zip
   http://ftp.squeak.org/3.9/mac/Squeak3.9-7067mac.zip
   http://ftp.squeak.org/3.9/unix-linux/Squeak3.9-final-7067.zip
These packages need to include:
   - A suitable VM for the platform
   - The image and changes
   - The sources file
Basically everything a noob needs to get started and that can be linked
from Squeak.org as a single download.

3) Suitable welcome information inside the release. Check out
http://ftp.squeak.org/3.6/Squeak3.6-5429-full.zip for what this can look
like - in 3.6 there is a whole bunch of interesting stuff to explore
which makes it interesting and engaging (and sadly I will add that 3.6
full is *smaller* than 3.10 basic). [some might consider this point
finished and I wouldn't hold the release because of it but it seems very
hard these days to explain to anyone who downloads Squeak what's cool
about it]

4) Suitable welcome information for people poking around in the download
site. In other words a README letting people know what to find where.

> In other words, how do we know we aren't done with 3.10 yet?

By simulating a noob. Try this: If you'd go to Squeak.org and wanted to
install Squeak either for the first time or for upgrading, what would
you need? The above points all directly relate to that question.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

[Göran Krampe]

Hi!

Ok, sorry if I am not tracking the thread in full - but probably more of
us aren't. Also - sorry if this post sounds harsh - I just want to get my
point across. :)

Can we establish one single thing - who is current Team leader for 3.10?

Now - there IS one very simple way to find out, just check the Team table
*maintained by the board* at squeak.org:

   http://www.squeak.org/Community/Teams

It says Ralph. So - correct or not? If not, fix table - if correct - where
is Ralph and could the board either get him onto the ship again or simply
get someone else to take over?

regards, Göran

PS. Great to see Ken stepping out and mopping up the last bits on the 3.10
release though. I still would like to see some more *official* words in
this matter - and what goes for the next team too.

PSS. I know that I keep bugging the board about the Team model and the
Team leader table - but it seems to me that the board SAYS it works with
the Team model but the ACTIONS are telling me otherwise.

[Stéphane Rollandin]

Andreas Raab a écrit :
> 3) Suitable welcome information inside the release. Check out
> http://ftp.squeak.org/3.6/Squeak3.6-5429-full.zip for what this can look
> like - in 3.6 there is a whole bunch of interesting stuff to explore
> which makes it interesting and engaging (and sadly I will add that 3.6
> full is *smaller* than 3.10 basic). [some might consider this point
> finished and I wouldn't hold the release because of it but it seems very
> hard these days to explain to anyone who downloads Squeak what's cool
> about it]

+1

Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was on 3.4
I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots of things to
discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull grey background with
a few windows opened on technical text, details of last updates... it
could not be more different.

Stef

[Karl Ramberg]

Stéphane Rollandin wrote:

> Andreas Raab a écrit :
>> 3) Suitable welcome information inside the release. Check out
>> http://ftp.squeak.org/3.6/Squeak3.6-5429-full.zip for what this can
>> look like - in 3.6 there is a whole bunch of interesting stuff to
>> explore which makes it interesting and engaging (and sadly I will add
>> that 3.6 full is *smaller* than 3.10 basic). [some might consider
>> this point finished and I wouldn't hold the release because of it but
>> it seems very hard these days to explain to anyone who downloads
>> Squeak what's cool about it]
>
> +1
>
> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was on
> 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots of
> things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull grey
> background with a few windows opened on technical text, details of
> last updates... it could not be more different.

<flamebait>
Well, it could be headless in a console window, as many wants.
</flamebait>


Karl

[Edgar J. De Cleene]

El 5/7/08 5:34 PM, "Peter Crowther" <Peter@...> escribió:

> A supportive community pulling in the direction of a release.  Instead,
> there is a fragmented community who want many different things, arguably
> few of which are suitable for the coherent, image-based exquisite
> personal computing platform which tempted so many of us into Smalltalk
> in the first place.  This makes the release manager's job so hard that
> it is a job nobody wants to take - it's a poisoned chalice.  Whoever
> produces the next release of Squeak will get more criticism than praise,
> because some people's favourite features will have been left out of the
> image while others' least favourite features will have come in.
>
> Anyone want the job?
>
> - Peter

Thanks for get my point.

The short answer is I WANT THE JOB

The long answer is How should be the next Squeak ?

Currently we have many different things in development and not finished DS,
MC2, SystemEditor what seems crucial to this.

Also , IMHO two different views or point of end for a "small image suited
for grow from" .

Spoon of Craig seems could be Squeak 4.0.

Kernel of Pavel seems the closest.

How we arrive to any from current 3.10 ?

Here is the difference, all people working now and doing the informal
meetings think different.

I repeat once more time I wish a short step , named 3.11 , cutting all we
know could be cut , packaged to some .mcz in a trusted repository and this
package could be loaded again into the 3.11 image as never was cut.

Edgar

[Edgar J. De Cleene]

El 5/7/08 6:44 PM, "Ken Causey" <ken@...> escribió:

> I'm using 3.8 as my example of a good release.  For 3.10 we need to
>
> 1.  Populate any incomplete platform support directories.
>
> 2.  Delete temporary files (note the wget-log files).
>
> 3.  Fix the 3.10 release zip:
>
> currently while the zip file itself is properly named
> Squeak3.10-7159-basic.zip the contents of the file are named
>
> Squeak3dot10.7159.changes
> Squeak3dot10.7159.image
>
> The zip should be recreated with consistent naming.
>
> 4.  Update the Squeak.org website to reflect 3.10 as the current stable
> release.
>
> 5.  I feel I'm forgetting something but I can't think of anything else
> at the moment.
>
>> Who can do it?
>
> Who 'can' or who 'should'?  I guess at this point really it's a matter
> of 'can'.  Can for most of the steps includes just about any recent
> release team member (including most of 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10) and all
> box-admins team members including myself.
>
> In the interest of expediency I'm willing to do as much as possible
> myself if Edgar wouldn't be insulted by my further interference.  I can
> take care of steps 1 (with assistance from VM developers), 2, 3, and
> maybe even 4 although I will probably need to coordinate with Janko or
> other webteam members.  And I guess I could even take care of 5 if I
> remember what it is. ;)

Thanks, I happy to learn and don't was insulted at all.

You could do 1, 2 and 3.

Myself could do 4.

What drive to next question.

Keith is right in insist on we should put one correction and myself get some
feedback from FunSqueak about flaps.

Also I discover with my Morphic games some methods we have in earlier Squeak
don't exist in 3.10 , without any good reasons for not having.

All this , and Mantis reports should go to some release image.

So I ask you made a interim Squeak 3.11 folder for put a "pre-alpha" image
for all people working now could find all related files.

Or maybe give access to current [DIR] Experiments/  for no confuse people.

Edgar

[Ralph Johnson]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Göran Krampe <goran@...> wrote:

>  Can we establish one single thing - who is current Team leader for 3.10?

3.10 is finished.  The important question is who is the leader for the
next team.

Edgar is doing a good job finishing up.  The last 1% always takes a
lot longer than it should.

In about a week I will be able to respond to questions again.

-Ralph

[Igor Stasenko]

2008/5/8 Edgar J. De Cleene <edgardec2001@...>:

>
>
>
>  El 5/7/08 5:34 PM, "Peter Crowther" <Peter@...> escribió:
>
>
>  > A supportive community pulling in the direction of a release.  Instead,
>  > there is a fragmented community who want many different things, arguably
>  > few of which are suitable for the coherent, image-based exquisite
>  > personal computing platform which tempted so many of us into Smalltalk
>  > in the first place.  This makes the release manager's job so hard that
>  > it is a job nobody wants to take - it's a poisoned chalice.  Whoever
>  > produces the next release of Squeak will get more criticism than praise,
>  > because some people's favourite features will have been left out of the
>  > image while others' least favourite features will have come in.
>  >
>  > Anyone want the job?
>  >
>  > - Peter
>
>  Thanks for get my point.
>
>  The short answer is I WANT THE JOB

Then i blessing you to take the steering wheel :)

>
>  The long answer is How should be the next Squeak ?
>
>  Currently we have many different things in development and not finished DS,
>  MC2, SystemEditor what seems crucial to this.
>
>  Also , IMHO two different views or point of end for a "small image suited
>  for grow from" .
>
>  Spoon of Craig seems could be Squeak 4.0.
>
>  Kernel of Pavel seems the closest.
>
>  How we arrive to any from current 3.10 ?
>
>  Here is the difference, all people working now and doing the informal
>  meetings think different.
>
>  I repeat once more time I wish a short step , named 3.11 , cutting all we
>  know could be cut , packaged to some .mcz in a trusted repository and this
>  package could be loaded again into the 3.11 image as never was cut.
>

Surely, the work should be continued, especially if you want to
continue with it.
I don't see the reason why board should ban you from your good and
voluntary will to improve squeak.
Just keep buggin us with removing obstacles from you way :)

>  Edgar
>
>

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

[Edgar J. De Cleene]

El 5/8/08 8:22 AM, "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua@...> escribió:

> Surely, the work should be continued, especially if you want to
continue with
> it.
I don't see the reason why board should ban you from your good
> and
voluntary will to improve squeak.
Just keep buggin us with removing
> obstacles from you way :)

I thanks your words

Edgar

[Keithy]

Stéphane Rollandin wrote:

> Andreas Raab a écrit :
>> 3) Suitable welcome information inside the release. Check out
>> http://ftp.squeak.org/3.6/Squeak3.6-5429-full.zip for what this can
>> look like - in 3.6 there is a whole bunch of interesting stuff to
>> explore which makes it interesting and engaging (and sadly I will add
>> that 3.6 full is *smaller* than 3.10 basic). [some might consider
>> this point finished and I wouldn't hold the release because of it but
>> it seems very hard these days to explain to anyone who downloads
>> Squeak what's cool about it]
>
> +1
>
> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was on
> 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots of
> things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull grey
> background with a few windows opened on technical text, details of
> last updates... it could not be more different.
>
> Stef

Thats the whole point of derivative images such as Fun-Squeak or
Squeak-dev image. Its horses for courses.

Those of us who want to actually use squeak for something in particular
find unloading packages harder than loading them.
So I support the goal of trimming down the main image (though its still
a bit fat)

Keith

[Bryce Kampjes]

Germán Arduino writes:
 > 2008/5/7, Keith Hodges <keith_hodges@...>:
 > > MC1.5 can load FFI,
 > >
 > > Installer install: 'Packages'.
 > > Installer sake addPackage: 'FFI'; install.
 > >
 > > Keith
 >
 > I'm a bit confused (I admit don't time in the last months to be on all the
 > details) but, why now all must be installed with "Installer" ? SqueakMap
 > continue working? And what is the role of Universes?

The short answer is you can load FFI fine into 3.9 or 3.10. Just don't
use Monticello 1.5 if you want to use either SqueakMap or Universes
for package loading.

I'm staying with SqueakMap and Universes as my package management
tools and I use FFI. This means that I can't use images that have
Monticello 1.5 loaded. So, I'm going to stop building Exupery
development images on top of Damien's great squeak-dev images.

While it is probably possible to argue that what Monticello 1.5 does
is as correct as Monticello 1.0, Monticello 1.5 came later and is
incompatable with some existing Monticello packages. Breaking
backwards compatability in a core part of the system is a serious bug.

Bryce

[Stéphane Rollandin]

To me the point is not how many packages are there, it is about making
the new user aware of the existence of what is in the image, and to do
it warmfully and playfully.

The packages still delivered in 3.10 are enough to provide a rich
interactive introduction to Squeak. That is what is missing: welcoming
the new user.


Stef


Keith Hodges a écrit :

> Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>> Andreas Raab a écrit :
>>> 3) Suitable welcome information inside the release. Check out
>>> http://ftp.squeak.org/3.6/Squeak3.6-5429-full.zip for what this can
>>> look like - in 3.6 there is a whole bunch of interesting stuff to
>>> explore which makes it interesting and engaging (and sadly I will add
>>> that 3.6 full is *smaller* than 3.10 basic). [some might consider
>>> this point finished and I wouldn't hold the release because of it but
>>> it seems very hard these days to explain to anyone who downloads
>>> Squeak what's cool about it]
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was on
>> 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots of
>> things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull grey
>> background with a few windows opened on technical text, details of
>> last updates... it could not be more different.
>>
>> Stef
> Thats the whole point of derivative images such as Fun-Squeak or
> Squeak-dev image. Its horses for courses.
>
> Those of us who want to actually use squeak for something in particular
> find unloading packages harder than loading them.
> So I support the goal of trimming down the main image (though its still
> a bit fat)
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>

[Andreas Raab]

Keith Hodges wrote:

>> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was on
>> 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots of
>> things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull grey
>> background with a few windows opened on technical text, details of
>> last updates... it could not be more different.
>>
> Thats the whole point of derivative images such as Fun-Squeak or
> Squeak-dev image. Its horses for courses.
>
> Those of us who want to actually use squeak for something in particular
> find unloading packages harder than loading them.
> So I support the goal of trimming down the main image (though its still
> a bit fat)

Then how come that 3.10 basic is larger than 3.6 full? Where is the
"trimming" in that? Isn't it much more accurate to say that the fun bits
have been replaced with boring bits? A quick comparison between 3.6 and
3.10 shows that games, speech and 3d are gone, and traits, monticello
and universes have been added (there are probably more but those are
obvious major differences).

Cheers,
   - Andreas

[Merik Voswinkel]

On May 8, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Keith Hodges wrote:
>>> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was  
>>> on 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots  
>>> of things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull  
>>> grey background with a few windows opened on technical text,  
>>> details of last updates... it could not be more different.
>>>
>> Thats the whole point of derivative images such as Fun-Squeak or  
>> Squeak-dev image. Its horses for courses.
>> Those of us who want to actually use squeak for something in  
>> particular find unloading packages harder than loading them.
>> So I support the goal of trimming down the main image (though its  
>> still a bit fat)
>
> Then how come that 3.10 basic is larger than 3.6 full? Where is the  
> "trimming" in that? Isn't it much more accurate to say that the fun  
> bits have been replaced with boring bits? A quick comparison between  
> 3.6 and 3.10 shows that games, speech and 3d are gone, and traits,  
> monticello and universes have been added (there are probably more  
> but those are obvious major differences).

+1 Andreas

I personally think it is a great loss that the fun bits are gone. I  
can reload them but mo