[Pharo-project] Tracing bugs/corrections/regressions ... in Pharo

Miguel Cobá miguel.coba at gmail.com
Tue Feb 1 06:47:44 CET 2011


Do you think that a trunk process like the Squeak one would be good for
Pharo? Any improvement to introduce in the process? Any drawback to
remove?

In the end the process is dictated by the underlying tools (MC and
squeaksource in this case). What kind of process of
patching/contributing would we have if tools like git and infrastructure
like github were available to Pharo/Squeak users/developers just as easy
like they are for any other open source project?

Many of the problems are products of the way that MC, Squeaksource,
Squeak/Pharo changesets, author/contributor attribution works in the
Squeak/Pharo world. Maybe the problem isn't the process but the current
tools. Maybe a profound solution is the only way to escape the tortuous
process we have?

Cheers  

El mar, 01-02-2011 a las 01:47 +0100, Nicolas Cellier escribió:
> The fact is that, while many patches find their way from Squeak to
> Pharo, very few take the other way.
> 
> Why is that ?
> - squeak people are sobing pharoers
> - squeak people are too few to achieve this task
> - there is nothing interesting happening in Pharo
> No no, please don't answer, I innoculate this bullshit intentionnally
> to vaccine this thread against further crap.
> 
> What IMO is the main explanation is this:
> - it's very easy to cherry pick squeak changes thanks to trunk: diff
> messages, while there is nothing equivalent in Pharo.
> 
> Just browsing Squeak/Pharo diffs, it's easy to recognize text
> copy/pasted via web with tabs changed in spaces.
> Also the pharo issue tracker is full of these.
> This gives some clues.
> 
> This is a very good thing that patches can be shared. But why not the
> other way around ?
> This is surprising because:
> - 1) Pharo is very active these days.
> - 2) Pharo was apparently setting a higher quality hurdle by forcing
> each modification to be traced
>       ( http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues )
> So we could have expected more fixes coming from Pharo.
> 
> Maybe it's because the process only have appearances of quality, but
> doesn't really pay off.
> Maybe I had some bad luck with
> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=3468
> Or is there many examples of issues closed without a clue ?
> Imagine you can recognize the symptoms of this bug in Pharo 1.1 and
> want to backport the patch...
> I'm interested to hear how to proceed.
> 
> The simple squeak trunk diff messages are not a panacea.
> A database of changes in all flavours of Squeak might help better.
> But it's very practicle and I wish I could see an equivalent in Pharo.
> 
> On the other end, I was finally forced to filter out the automated
> [Pharo-Issues] posts.
> The signal/noise ratio is far too low to sustain attention, though I
> for one care about patches.
> 
> I wish my criticism could bring introspection, better and - why not -
> squeak friendly :) practices.
> 
> Nicolas
> 

-- 
Miguel Cobá
http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz
http://miguel.leugim.com.mx







More information about the Pharo-project mailing list