headers
Giovanni Corriga | 1 Jun 03:48
Gravatar

Re: Re: The version 3.10 does not work on Linux.

Andreas Raab ha scritto:
> Giovanni Corriga wrote:
>> I'm not talking about mantaining, I'm talking about releasing. Squeak 
>> is the only system that I know of where the VM/interpreter is not 
>> released at the same time as "the runtime". We should try and have new 
>> VMs released when we release the new image, if only to make things 
>> more understandable for the beginners.
> 
> Can you explain what exactly you mean by "more understandable for 
> beginners"? The current situation is such that we have updated 3.10 VMs 
> available at http://ftp.squeak.org/3.10/ which (outside of John's naming 
> scheme) reflect the 3.10 heritage accurately. These VMs were available 
> in alpha and beta versions earlier and are now available alongside the 
> appropriate image release. What's not to understand about that?
> 

At the moment, the current version of the Windows vm is 3.10.6 . If I 
where a newbie, I would expect to have a 3.10.6 image too, to use with 
that vm.

	Giovanni
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Brad Fuller | 1 Jun 07:24
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Re: The version 3.10 does not work on Linux.

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Giovanni Corriga <giovanni <at> corriga.net> wrote:
> Andreas Raab ha scritto:
>>
>> Giovanni Corriga wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about mantaining, I'm talking about releasing. Squeak is
>>> the only system that I know of where the VM/interpreter is not released at
>>> the same time as "the runtime". We should try and have new VMs released when
>>> we release the new image, if only to make things more understandable for the
>>> beginners.
>>
>> Can you explain what exactly you mean by "more understandable for
>> beginners"? The current situation is such that we have updated 3.10 VMs
>> available at http://ftp.squeak.org/3.10/ which (outside of John's naming
>> scheme) reflect the 3.10 heritage accurately. These VMs were available in
>> alpha and beta versions earlier and are now available alongside the
>> appropriate image release. What's not to understand about that?
>>
>
> At the moment, the current version of the Windows vm is 3.10.6 . If I where
> a newbie, I would expect to have a 3.10.6 image too, to use with that vm.

maybe we just need to make it clearer that version numbers are
different for vm's and images.
Or, convert the version numbers to a word (like "leopard") and use
that for the complete package of image and vm that's released (at a
major releases)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andreas Raab | 1 Jun 07:46
Picon
Picon

Re: The version 3.10 does not work on Linux.

Giovanni Corriga wrote:
> At the moment, the current version of the Windows vm is 3.10.6 . If I 
> where a newbie, I would expect to have a 3.10.6 image too, to use with 
> that vm.

I see. It seems difficult to change that though, because the VMs do 
evolve differently. Any ideas how to improve the situation?

Cheers,
   - Andreas
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
John M McIntosh | 1 Jun 08:27

Re: Re: The version 3.10 does not work on Linux.

Well actually we had a huge difference of opinion in versioning within  
the Sophie team and I learned versioning is fairly irrational and
a political football at times.

As background, in 1996 era the entire VM source code *was* distributed  
within the image. Because of this for years the VM version was
tightly coupled to the image version, since each VM change for the  
macintosh required pushing out a new changeset and linking that
somehow to the Image version number.  So I'll assume guilt for keeping  
that cycle going for years.

Lately (read years) the VMs have moved away from daily/weekly/monthly  
changes, well perhaps not the macintosh VM, but that is because
Apple keeps pushing out different versions of OSX and changing the  
rules, even beyond fostering migration from powerpc to macintel.
Vista users are you happy? (couldn't resist, thought not... ).

Really I suspect the VM version numbers should fully decouple from the  
image version numbers, really nothing requires one to use a 3.10 image  
to build a  VM that will work with a 3.10, I'm quite happy to continue  
working with my 3.8 VMMaker image...

At the moment I'm fully occupied with a VM rewrite, post Sophie era,  
so I'll take hints on what the new macintosh version should be called...

On May 31, 2008, at 10:46 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Giovanni Corriga wrote:
>> At the moment, the current version of the Windows vm is 3.10.6 . If  
>> I where a newbie, I would expect to have a 3.10.6 image too, to use
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Andreas Raab | 1 Jun 09:27
Picon
Picon

Re: The version 3.10 does not work on Linux.

John M McIntosh wrote:
> Really I suspect the VM version numbers should fully decouple from the 
> image version numbers, really nothing requires one to use a 3.10 image 
> to build a  VM that will work with a 3.10, I'm quite happy to continue 
> working with my 3.8 VMMaker image...

And of course the story comes full circle once people realize that the 
reason for naming the VMs according to image versions was precisely in 
response to complaints about how confusing it is that the versions 
differ ;-)

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> 
> At the moment I'm fully occupied with a VM rewrite, post Sophie era, so 
> I'll take hints on what the new macintosh version should be called...
> 
> 
> On May 31, 2008, at 10:46 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
> 
>> Giovanni Corriga wrote:
>>> At the moment, the current version of the Windows vm is 3.10.6 . If I 
>>> where a newbie, I would expect to have a 3.10.6 image too, to use 
>>> with that vm.
>>
>> I see. It seems difficult to change that though, because the VMs do 
>> evolve differently. Any ideas how to improve the situation?
>>
>> Cheers,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Klaus D. Witzel | 1 Jun 11:43

Slashdotted: MagLev, Ruby VM on Gemstone OODB, Wows RailsConf

The article is at

- http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/05/31/2316215.shtml

Enjoy the Railers being impressed by Smalltalk .images, tools and VM's :)

/Klaus
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Damien Cassou | 1 Jun 11:57
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Re: A criticism of the Nile paper (was Re: My view on Traits)

Hi Andreas,

On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 13:32 -0700, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Damien Cassou wrote:
> > I'm sorry. I haven't updated the universe package for some time.
> > Please use SqueakSource and load Nile-All. This package depends on
> > other required package and contains NSMetrics.

I've updated the Universe.

> Okay, after loading this I understand better where the numbers come 
> from. First, a couple of comments on NSMetrics: 
> #methodsInClassAndMetaclass:methodListBlock: does a union of methods in 
> class and metaclass which looks a little questionable to me. I don't 
> think it matters here but it seems odd to count a method in class and 
> metaclass only once.

I haven't find a place where it was a problem. If you do, please tell
me.

> The #numberOfReimplementedMethodsForClasses: also 
> has two problems in such that it does only look at methods overridden in 
> the direct superclass (so it doesn't find methods implemented in Stream 
> and overridden in ReadStream but not in PositionableStream) and that it 
> excludes the required selectors of traits but not those of superclasses 
> (i.e., self subclassResponsibility) which it should discount as well 
> (see note below on the metrics that are affected by it).

I need to have a deeper look into this. Thanks for pointing me. If you
already have a fix, could you please sent it?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Giovanni Corriga | 1 Jun 13:58
Gravatar

Re: Re: The version 3.10 does not work on Linux.

Andreas Raab ha scritto:
> John M McIntosh wrote:
>> Really I suspect the VM version numbers should fully decouple from the 
>> image version numbers, really nothing requires one to use a 3.10 image 
>> to build a  VM that will work with a 3.10, I'm quite happy to continue 
>> working with my 3.8 VMMaker image...
> 
> And of course the story comes full circle once people realize that the 
> reason for naming the VMs according to image versions was precisely in 
> response to complaints about how confusing it is that the versions 
> differ ;-)
> 

Heh. We could keep the current version as an "internal" version, and add 
an "external" version that will stay in sync with the image version.

What do you think?

	Giovanni
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Igor Stasenko | 1 Jun 15:12
Picon

Re: Re: The version 3.10 does not work on Linux.

We can use version strings like following format:

Squeak VM xx.yy.zz (images ver aa.bb - cc.dd)

This makes it absolutely understandable, that VM having own version ,
AND works/compatible with squeak images of given versions.

2008/6/1 Giovanni Corriga <giovanni <at> corriga.net>:
> Andreas Raab ha scritto:
>>
>> John M McIntosh wrote:
>>>
>>> Really I suspect the VM version numbers should fully decouple from the
>>> image version numbers, really nothing requires one to use a 3.10 image to
>>> build a  VM that will work with a 3.10, I'm quite happy to continue working
>>> with my 3.8 VMMaker image...
>>
>> And of course the story comes full circle once people realize that the
>> reason for naming the VMs according to image versions was precisely in
>> response to complaints about how confusing it is that the versions differ
>> ;-)
>>
>
> Heh. We could keep the current version as an "internal" version, and add an
> "external" version that will stay in sync with the image version.
>
> What do you think?
>
>        Giovanni
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jerome Peace | 1 Jun 18:04
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Revising Squeak 7175 (3.10.1)

[squeak-dev] Re: Revising Squeak 7175 (3.10.1)

***
>Klaus D. Witzel klaus.witzel at cobss.com 
>Sat May 31 08:16:40 UTC 2008 
>
>On Sat, 31 May 2008 04:09:39 +0200, Jerome Peace wrote:
>
>> Revising Squeak 7175 (3.10.1)
>
>I think you describe your appreciation/critique as if the issues which Ken  
>was concerned about can be fixed and uploaded to the public download area  
>until everybody is happy with them :(

In the part I mentioned. Yes. I think that is doable. 
If only by adopting the update stream version as the release candidate.

I don't get why the last step needed to be hard or difficult.
99% should have been done by the update stream
 with just a release cleanup necessary to get from there
 to the first release candidate.
Surely that could have been done from a change set postscript.

Ken did something he described as hard and more involved than he expected.
 How did he do that?

I am very troubled by the reintroduction of the phantom catagory.

I can't imagine how that was done. 
It makes me suspicious (as only a bug tracker will get)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane