From serge.stinckwich at gmail.com Thu Mar 13 11:44:31 2008 From: serge.stinckwich at gmail.com (Serge Stinckwich) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:44:31 +0100 Subject: [sbe-discussion] French translation of the web site Message-ID: Hi all, the french translation is almost finish here : https://www.iam.unibe.ch/scg/svn_repos/SqueakByExample/FrenchBook/SBE.pdf We need to work now on the french translation of the website : http://squeakbyexample.org/ How could we do that ? Do you use a web template ? I think we need a specific URL for the french version of the book, maybe : http://squeakbyexample.org/fr/ Best regards, -- Serge Stinckwich http://doesnotunderstand.free.fr/ From stephane.ducasse at free.fr Thu Mar 13 17:21:36 2008 From: stephane.ducasse at free.fr (stephane ducasse) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:21:36 +0100 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: French translation of the web site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 13, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Serge Stinckwich wrote: > Hi all, > the french translation is almost finish here : > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/scg/svn_repos/SqueakByExample/FrenchBook/SBE.pdf > > We need to work now on the french translation of the website : > http://squeakbyexample.org/ > How could we do that ? Do you use a web template ? > > I think we need a specific URL for the french version of the book, > maybe : http://squeakbyexample.org/fr/ yes this would be nice. > > > Best regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > http://doesnotunderstand.free.fr/ > _______________________________________________ > Sbe-discussion mailing list > Sbe-discussion at iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/sbe-discussion > From picxenk at gmail.com Tue Mar 18 05:36:00 2008 From: picxenk at gmail.com (SeungBum Kim) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:36:00 +0900 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Changes history for the 2nd edition Message-ID: Hi all, I really enjoyed every chapters in the SBE. Recently I found the 2nd edition, and I'd like to know differences from the first edition. It will be helpful to keep a changes history of the book on the website. From denker at iam.unibe.ch Tue Mar 18 07:34:51 2008 From: denker at iam.unibe.ch (Marcus Denker) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:34:51 +0100 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: Changes history for the 2nd edition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 18.03.2008, at 05:36, SeungBum Kim wrote: > Hi all, > > I really enjoyed every chapters in the SBE. > Recently I found the 2nd edition, and I'd like to know differences > from > the first edition. > > It will be helpful to keep a changes history of the book on the > website. > Hello, There is a ChangeLog at https://www.iam.unibe.ch/scg/svn_repos/SqueakByExample/Book/errata.txt Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- denker at iam.unibe.ch http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~denker From victor.palique at gmail.com Fri Mar 28 03:30:43 2008 From: victor.palique at gmail.com (Victor Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:30:43 -0400 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Errata on the second edition Message-ID: <3bee9c1d0803271930x454df91dj4c96cf407ac7115a@mail.gmail.com> Hello, First of all I want to thank the authors for the excellent book. I can't remember the last computer book I read cover to cover! Please find attached a patch with two minor corrections. These are the only two errors I have spotted so far. Saludos, Victor Rodriguez. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: errata1-vr.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 1997 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.iam.unibe.ch/pipermail/sbe-discussion/attachments/20080328/e6c96f95/errata1-vr.bin From damien.cassou at gmail.com Fri Mar 28 07:39:39 2008 From: damien.cassou at gmail.com (Damien Cassou) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:39:39 +0100 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: Errata on the second edition In-Reply-To: <3bee9c1d0803271930x454df91dj4c96cf407ac7115a@mail.gmail.com> References: <3bee9c1d0803271930x454df91dj4c96cf407ac7115a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6ac749c10803272339sf73e1f2jbd844d1c453887e9@mail.gmail.com> Dear Victor, thank you very much for your mail and your welcomed patch. I'm taking care of it. Feel free to submit further patches. Thank you On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Victor Rodriguez wrote: > Hello, > > First of all I want to thank the authors for the excellent book. I > can't remember the last computer book I read cover to cover! > > Please find attached a patch with two minor corrections. These are > the only two errors I have spotted so far. > > Saludos, > > Victor Rodriguez. > > _______________________________________________ > Sbe-discussion mailing list > Sbe-discussion at iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/sbe-discussion > > -- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ah?: ?I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck?. (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) From tapplek at gmail.com Sat Mar 29 08:11:09 2008 From: tapplek at gmail.com (Matthew Fulmer) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:11:09 -0700 Subject: [sbe-discussion] [merlyn@stonehenge.com: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync?] Message-ID: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> Yet more confusion about exactly what squeak version the book illustrates. ----- Forwarded message from "Randal L. Schwartz" ----- To: "dfinlayson at usgs.gov, A friendly place to get answers to even the most basic questions about Squeak." From: "Randal L. Schwartz" Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:21:00 -0700 Subject: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync? Its unfortunate that even on the second edition of SBE, this bug still hasn't been corrected, I see. The book examples are all from the *release* version of 3.9, even though the book indicates (incorrectly) that you should use Damien's dev image. Get the standard squeak release and all will be well, and maybe the *third* SBE will fix this error. Sent from my iPhone! On Mar 28, 2008, at 10:02 PM, "David Finlayson" wrote: > I'm on vacation and learning Smalltalk is how I'm spending my evenings > (family is young and goes to bed early). I downloaded a copy of Squeak > by Example (Version 2008-3-10) and the latest squeak for OS X: > > Squeak3.9-7067mac vm 3.8.18beta1U > > With the recommended dev-image: > > sq3.9.1-7075dev08.03.1 > > Considering the date of the most recent update to the book, I was > surprised (and very confused by) a number of major differences between > the Squeak image described in the book and the one on my computer. > I've waisted a lot of my spare time trying to figure out what the heck > is going on. The main problems are differences between the World menu > (completely reorganized, apparently), expert vs novice mode (no "Do > it" in novice mode but this was the default mode) and what looks like > some major changes in the System Browser (for example, the need for > packages before defining a class, the lack of a second window for > editing class comments, etc. > > Right now, I can't define a new method as described in Section 2.2 the > method template doesn't show up when I click on -- all -- in the > protocols pane. Doubtless it is user error, but I'd like to get back > on track (maybe I downloaded something I shouldn't have?). Any > suggestions? > > I checked the on-line errata for the book and it does not mention any > of these interface changes I'm seeing. Thought that I would post here > rather than waist more time flailing around. > > Sorry so long winded. > > David > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/ From oscar at iam.unibe.ch Sat Mar 29 18:57:58 2008 From: oscar at iam.unibe.ch (Oscar Nierstrasz) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:57:58 +0100 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: [merlyn@stonehenge.com: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync?] In-Reply-To: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> References: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> Message-ID: <36670A39-789F-4594-ABDA-C54D107035B2@iam.unibe.ch> Hi Folks, I would like some advice. Which version of Squeak should we base the next SBE release on? I know that the September release was consistent. Right now the situation is rather confusing to me, so I would like some hints. - on On Mar 29, 2008, at 8:11, Matthew Fulmer wrote: > Yet more confusion about exactly what squeak version the book > illustrates. > > ----- Forwarded message from "Randal L. Schwartz" > ----- > > To: "dfinlayson at usgs.gov, > A friendly place to get answers to even the most basic questions > about > Squeak." > From: "Randal L. Schwartz" > Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:21:00 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync? > > Its unfortunate that even on the second edition of SBE, this bug still > hasn't been corrected, I see. The book examples are all from the > *release* > version of 3.9, even though the book indicates (incorrectly) that you > should use Damien's dev image. Get the standard squeak release and > all will > be well, and maybe the *third* SBE will fix this error. > > Sent from my iPhone! > > On Mar 28, 2008, at 10:02 PM, "David Finlayson" > wrote: > >> I'm on vacation and learning Smalltalk is how I'm spending my >> evenings >> (family is young and goes to bed early). I downloaded a copy of >> Squeak >> by Example (Version 2008-3-10) and the latest squeak for OS X: >> >> Squeak3.9-7067mac vm 3.8.18beta1U >> >> With the recommended dev-image: >> >> sq3.9.1-7075dev08.03.1 >> >> Considering the date of the most recent update to the book, I was >> surprised (and very confused by) a number of major differences >> between >> the Squeak image described in the book and the one on my computer. >> I've waisted a lot of my spare time trying to figure out what the >> heck >> is going on. The main problems are differences between the World menu >> (completely reorganized, apparently), expert vs novice mode (no "Do >> it" in novice mode but this was the default mode) and what looks like >> some major changes in the System Browser (for example, the need for >> packages before defining a class, the lack of a second window for >> editing class comments, etc. >> >> Right now, I can't define a new method as described in Section 2.2 >> the >> method template doesn't show up when I click on -- all -- in the >> protocols pane. Doubtless it is user error, but I'd like to get back >> on track (maybe I downloaded something I shouldn't have?). Any >> suggestions? >> >> I checked the on-line errata for the book and it does not mention any >> of these interface changes I'm seeing. Thought that I would post here >> rather than waist more time flailing around. >> >> Sorry so long winded. >> >> David >> _______________________________________________ >> Beginners mailing list >> Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners >> > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > -- > Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Sbe-discussion mailing list > Sbe-discussion at iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/sbe-discussion From kbrown at mac.com Sat Mar 29 19:32:28 2008 From: kbrown at mac.com (Ken G. Brown) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:32:28 -0600 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: [merlyn@stonehenge.com: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync?] In-Reply-To: <36670A39-789F-4594-ABDA-C54D107035B2@iam.unibe.ch> References: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> <36670A39-789F-4594-ABDA-C54D107035B2@iam.unibe.ch> Message-ID: I had some similar uncertainty recently as to what is the best version to base work on. I wanted to pick the version and stream that would have the best long term viability, the one that would have the most new stuff coming out for it, etc. I had a short discussion about the topic on #Squeak and finally decided that even though some nifty stuff like Tweak, Sophie, Croquet, Scratch and others are built on older versions, and that perhaps 3.10 wasn't fully stable for production work, 3.10 is on the core development path, won't be going away, and should only get better. There are also efforts afoot to bring the various branches back into harmony with the main 3.10 and future core Squeak path. My vote would be to base the new SBE on 3.10. Ken G. Brown At 6:57 PM +0100 3/29/08, Oscar Nierstrasz apparently wrote: >Hi Folks, > >I would like some advice. > >Which version of Squeak should we base the next SBE release on? > >I know that the September release was consistent. Right now the >situation is rather confusing to me, so I would like some hints. > >- on > <> From stephane.ducasse at free.fr Sat Mar 29 21:02:26 2008 From: stephane.ducasse at free.fr (stephane ducasse) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:02:26 +0100 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: [merlyn@stonehenge.com: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync?] In-Reply-To: References: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> <36670A39-789F-4594-ABDA-C54D107035B2@iam.unibe.ch> Message-ID: Hi oscar, **Ideally** I would like one with Universes loaded so I thought that a squeak-dev image would be good. Now it does not seem a good option because some preloaded items are introducing a different behavior. So I would stick with a non squeak-dev image but newbies will get frustrated (I mean really mad) when they will try to load a package because knowing the dependencies is a challenge. May be if damien can produce an image where the default browser is the old crappy one we could use it :) Now about 3.10, I have some doubts because this was ***totally*** unclear what was done. The two persons working on it **never** communicated publicly (even if I asked several times). You had to browse some obscures web sites or look at items on mantis! The problem is that sometimes you trust a good guy and it may be totally wrong. This happened to me with a fix proposed by Janko which is quite good in webdev and bert mentioned that his fix was garbage. So I'm quite sad that the people doing 3.10 did not realise that it was important to describe what they were doing so that others can give feedback. This is a key aspect in opensource dev. May be for 3.9 we were not transparent but we sent tons of report, informations, queries....to communicate and minimize mistake. So this is why I would not trust it. Now 3.10 got only a few fixes harvested so the delta with 3.9 are not that big. I'm planning to go over them for sapphire to check what have been really done. I think that most of the harvested items were little bug fixes. Now as an author of the book I would prefer to stick to 3.9 just because we can that way express the fact that we are not satisfied with the way the 3.10 version was done. I think that the squeak community can thank us for all the great job we did to promote Squeak. And 3.9 is a really stable version. Lukas is using it for all his dev. I'm basing sapphire on it for that reason. May be once I will go over the changes in 3.10 we can switch. Stef PS: Ken I agree with you. Now I really express my feeling and I did it publicly so that you understand my point of view. I really tried to help 3.9 and offered my help but they did not want it. On Mar 29, 2008, at 7:32 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote: > I had some similar uncertainty recently as to what is the best > version to base work on. I wanted to pick the version and stream > that would have the best long term viability, the one that would > have the most new stuff coming out for it, etc. I had a short > discussion about the topic on #Squeak and finally decided that even > though some nifty stuff like Tweak, Sophie, Croquet, Scratch and > others are built on older versions, and that perhaps 3.10 wasn't > fully stable for production work, 3.10 is on the core development > path, won't be going away, and should only get better. There are > also efforts afoot to bring the various branches back into harmony > with the main 3.10 and future core Squeak path. > > My vote would be to base the new SBE on 3.10. > > Ken G. Brown > > At 6:57 PM +0100 3/29/08, Oscar Nierstrasz apparently wrote: >> Hi Folks, >> >> I would like some advice. >> >> Which version of Squeak should we base the next SBE release on? >> >> I know that the September release was consistent. Right now the >> situation is rather confusing to me, so I would like some hints. >> >> - on >> > <> > _______________________________________________ > Sbe-discussion mailing list > Sbe-discussion at iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/sbe-discussion > From kbrown at mac.com Sat Mar 29 22:36:52 2008 From: kbrown at mac.com (Ken G. Brown) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:36:52 -0600 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: [merlyn@stonehenge.com: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync?] In-Reply-To: References: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> <36670A39-789F-4594-ABDA-C54D107035B2@iam.unibe.ch> Message-ID: It seems to me that 3.10 is pretty close to 3.9, yet with lots of improvements in the area of work done to make tests green, and anything added needed tests as well. I believe the work they were doing was clearly communicated. See: The goals really didn't change all that much from the beginning. At least that's what I gathered over time from following the lists. If there are issues with 3.10, let's work with it and work them out and move into the future. Ken G. Brown At 9:02 PM +0100 3/29/08, stephane ducasse apparently wrote: >Hi oscar, > >**Ideally** I would like one with Universes loaded so I thought that a >squeak-dev image would be good. >Now it does not seem a good option because some preloaded items are >introducing a different behavior. >So I would stick with a non squeak-dev image but newbies will get >frustrated (I mean really mad) >when they will try to load a package because knowing the dependencies >is a challenge. >May be if damien can produce an image where the default browser is the >old crappy one we could use it :) > >Now about 3.10, I have some doubts because this was ***totally*** >unclear what was done. The two persons >working on it **never** communicated publicly (even if I asked several >times). You had to browse some obscures web sites or look at items on >mantis! >The problem is that sometimes you trust a good guy and it may be >totally wrong. This happened to me >with a fix proposed by Janko which is quite good in webdev and bert >mentioned that his fix was garbage. >So I'm quite sad that the people doing 3.10 did not realise that it >was important to describe what they were doing so that others can give >feedback. This is a key aspect in opensource dev. May be for 3.9 we >were not transparent but >we sent tons of report, informations, queries....to communicate and >minimize mistake. >So this is why I would not trust it. Now 3.10 got only a few fixes >harvested so the delta with 3.9 are not >that big. > >I'm planning to go over them for sapphire to check what have been >really done. I think that most of the harvested items >were little bug fixes. > >Now as an author of the book I would prefer to stick to 3.9 just >because we can that way express the fact that >we are not satisfied with the way the 3.10 version was done. I think >that the squeak community can thank us for >all the great job we did to promote Squeak. And 3.9 is a really stable >version. Lukas is using it for all his dev. I'm basing sapphire on it >for that reason. May be once I will go over the changes in 3.10 we can >switch. > >Stef > >PS: Ken I agree with you. Now I really express my feeling and I did it >publicly so that you understand my point >of view. I really tried to help 3.9 and offered my help but they did >not want it. > > > >On Mar 29, 2008, at 7:32 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote: > >> I had some similar uncertainty recently as to what is the best >> version to base work on. I wanted to pick the version and stream >> that would have the best long term viability, the one that would >> have the most new stuff coming out for it, etc. I had a short >> discussion about the topic on #Squeak and finally decided that even >> though some nifty stuff like Tweak, Sophie, Croquet, Scratch and >> others are built on older versions, and that perhaps 3.10 wasn't >> fully stable for production work, 3.10 is on the core development >> path, won't be going away, and should only get better. There are >> also efforts afoot to bring the various branches back into harmony >> with the main 3.10 and future core Squeak path. >> >> My vote would be to base the new SBE on 3.10. >> >> Ken G. Brown >> >> At 6:57 PM +0100 3/29/08, Oscar Nierstrasz apparently wrote: >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> I would like some advice. >>> >>> Which version of Squeak should we base the next SBE release on? >>> >>> I know that the September release was consistent. Right now the >>> situation is rather confusing to me, so I would like some hints. > >> >>> - on >>> >> <> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sbe-discussion mailing list >> Sbe-discussion at iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/sbe-discussion >> > >_______________________________________________ >Sbe-discussion mailing list >Sbe-discussion at iam.unibe.ch >https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/sbe-discussion From tapplek at gmail.com Sun Mar 30 00:53:14 2008 From: tapplek at gmail.com (Matthew Fulmer) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:53:14 -0700 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: [merlyn@stonehenge.com: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync?] In-Reply-To: References: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> <36670A39-789F-4594-ABDA-C54D107035B2@iam.unibe.ch> Message-ID: <20080329235314.GL28598@tacobell> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 03:36:52PM -0600, Ken G. Brown wrote: > It seems to me that 3.10 is pretty close to 3.9, yet with lots of improvements in the area of work done to make tests green, and anything added needed tests as well. > I believe the work they were doing was clearly communicated. See: > The goals really didn't change all that much from the beginning. > > At least that's what I gathered over time from following the lists. > If there are issues with 3.10, let's work with it and work them out and move into the future. One big issue with 3.10 is that it is totally unclear what license all the contributions to 3.10 were made under. Even if you signed the agreement, most of 3.10 was done after the effective dates on the contributor agreements. And I don't think the release team was careful to specify the license of contributions. So, as far as getting a license-clean image goes, 3.10 is out. See http://installer.pbwiki.org/LicenseAuditing for an overview of what contributions are license-clean or not -- Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/ From stephane.ducasse at free.fr Sun Mar 30 11:18:57 2008 From: stephane.ducasse at free.fr (stephane ducasse) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:18:57 +0200 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: [merlyn@stonehenge.com: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync?] In-Reply-To: <20080329235314.GL28598@tacobell> References: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> <36670A39-789F-4594-ABDA-C54D107035B2@iam.unibe.ch> <20080329235314.GL28598@tacobell> Message-ID: <598B2E68-25A9-4B1E-B681-D0DDDEF93B56@free.fr> >> It seems to me that 3.10 is pretty close to 3.9, yet with lots of >> improvements in the area of work done to make tests green, and >> anything added needed tests as well. >> I believe the work they were doing was clearly communicated. See: > > Ken I hope that the next release team will understand what is communication because this list is not that clear. But if you believe it, what can I say. Lot of people asked me what have been done inside 3.10 and I could not answer. But at the end I do not care that much because squeak is getting on my nerves. >> The goals really didn't change all that much from the beginning. >> >> At least that's what I gathered over time from following the lists. >> If there are issues with 3.10, let's work with it and work them out >> and move into the future. > > One big issue with 3.10 is that it is totally unclear what > license all the contributions to 3.10 were made under. Even if > you signed the agreement, most of 3.10 was done after the > effective dates on the contributor agreements. And I don't think > the release team was careful to specify the license of > contributions. So, as far as getting a license-clean image goes, > 3.10 is out. I asked the foundation to clarify that point and I hope that we will hear something. It seems to me that viewpoint does not want to collect agreements for the future version. I raised the issue to the esug board because it could do it. I asked ESUG if it would support the collection of agreement for sapphire related fixes. I read the apache indiviual agreement to see how they do it. > See http://installer.pbwiki.org/LicenseAuditing for an overview > of what contributions are license-clean or not > > -- > Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Sbe-discussion mailing list > Sbe-discussion at iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/sbe-discussion > From stephane.ducasse at free.fr Sun Mar 30 11:42:21 2008 From: stephane.ducasse at free.fr (stephane ducasse) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:42:21 +0200 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: [merlyn@stonehenge.com: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync?] In-Reply-To: <20080329235314.GL28598@tacobell> References: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> <36670A39-789F-4594-ABDA-C54D107035B2@iam.unibe.ch> <20080329235314.GL28598@tacobell> Message-ID: > See http://installer.pbwiki.org/LicenseAuditing for an overview > of what contributions are license-clean or not Matthew can you confirm to me that this analysis holds even in the context where bug fixes posted to mantis are declared MIT. The more I learn about that the more I think that squeak is a huge mess. Stef From tapplek at gmail.com Sun Mar 30 11:58:25 2008 From: tapplek at gmail.com (Matthew Fulmer) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:58:25 -0700 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: [merlyn@stonehenge.com: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync?] In-Reply-To: References: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> <36670A39-789F-4594-ABDA-C54D107035B2@iam.unibe.ch> <20080329235314.GL28598@tacobell> Message-ID: <20080330095825.GM28598@tacobell> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:42:21AM +0200, stephane ducasse wrote: > > See http://installer.pbwiki.org/LicenseAuditing for an overview > > of what contributions are license-clean or not > > Matthew can you confirm to me that this analysis holds even in the > context where bug fixes > posted to mantis are declared MIT. As far as I know, the only additions made to 3.10 were: - Bug fixes from Mantis - Package Universes The package universe SqueakSource page lists no license: http://www.squeaksource.com/universes.html If universes and the mantis contributions magically became MIT, it is possible that all contributions made during 3.10 are MIT, and thus 3.10 is no worse off than 3.9, license-wise > The more I learn about that the > more I think that squeak is > a huge mess. I'm glad you are taking an initiative to fix it. It seems to be the same things I would want to incorporate in an incremental release. I would appreciate it if you could come to the IRC meeting on Monday, 18:00 UTC: http://installer.pbwiki.org/MeetingNotes005 Sorry I haven't yet made the agenda; it's been a hectic week. The main item I want to discuss is what features should be included in a time-boxed incremental release due on the solstice (20 June). I'll post more as soon as I write up an agenda. In the mean time, I put up everything I know about how to do a relicense at: http://installer.pbwiki.org/Squeak40 -- Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/ From stephane.ducasse at free.fr Sun Mar 30 12:23:50 2008 From: stephane.ducasse at free.fr (stephane ducasse) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:23:50 +0200 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: [merlyn@stonehenge.com: Re: [Newbies] SBE and Squeak versions out-of-sync?] In-Reply-To: <20080330095825.GM28598@tacobell> References: <20080329071109.GF28598@tacobell> <36670A39-789F-4594-ABDA-C54D107035B2@iam.unibe.ch> <20080329235314.GL28598@tacobell> <20080330095825.GM28598@tacobell> Message-ID: <82E42E1C-96EA-47A2-B614-7DDCBEF8E84C@free.fr> > > As far as I know, the only additions made to 3.10 were: > - Bug fixes from Mantis > - Package Universes > > The package universe SqueakSource page lists no license: > http://www.squeaksource.com/universes.html Ask lex spoon. I imagine it is. I think that squeaksource should only host MIT project. This would solve a lot of problem for external packages. > If universes and the mantis contributions magically became MIT, The point is not about magic. The squeakfoundation should check if this is valid to say that if a bug report system (website = squeaksource) states that all the code posted in it is MIT, the code is MIT. > it is possible that all contributions made during 3.10 are MIT, > and thus 3.10 is no worse off than 3.9, license-wise which would be good. >> The more I learn about that the >> more I think that squeak is >> a huge mess. > > I'm glad you are taking an initiative to fix it. It > seems to be the same things I would want to incorporate in an > incremental release. I would appreciate it if you could come to > the IRC meeting on Monday, 18:00 UTC: > http://installer.pbwiki.org/MeetingNotes005 I'm really bad at understanding time zones and I missed consistently the squeakfoundation meeting because they were during the week and I have 3 kids and ... > Sorry I haven't yet made the agenda; it's been a hectic week. The > main item I want to discuss is what features should be included > in a time-boxed incremental release due on the solstice (20 > June). > I'll post more as soon as I write up an agenda. In the > mean time, I put up everything I know about how to do a > relicense at: > http://installer.pbwiki.org/Squeak40 > > -- > Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Sbe-discussion mailing list > Sbe-discussion at iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/sbe-discussion > From ckasso at sprynet.com Mon Mar 31 16:29:00 2008 From: ckasso at sprynet.com (ckasso) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:29:00 -0400 Subject: [sbe-discussion] some errata Message-ID: <1206973740.9859.29.camel@creek> Greetings, Page 54 second line from the bottom: super also refers to the receiver of the current method, but when you should begin a new paragraph. Page 31 This template shows us Smalltalk expression that sends a message to a should read: This template shows us a Smalltalk expression that sends a message to a Page 31 Actually, since SBECell does not exist yet, we passed as argument the should read: Actually, since SBECell does not exist yet, we passed as an argument the Page 58 Blocks may also declare local variables, which are surround by vertical should read: Blocks may also declare local variables, which are surrounded by vertical Page 58 Blocks are actually lexical closures, since they can refer to variables of the surrounding environment. The following block refers the variable x of its enclosing environment: should read: Blocks are actually lexical closures, since they can refer to variables of the surrounding environment. The following block refers to the variable x of its enclosing environment: or: Blocks are actually lexical closures, since they can reference variables of the surrounding environment. The following block references the variable x of its enclosing environment: Chris From damien.cassou at gmail.com Mon Mar 31 20:04:36 2008 From: damien.cassou at gmail.com (Damien Cassou) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:04:36 +0200 Subject: [sbe-discussion] Re: some errata In-Reply-To: <1206973740.9859.29.camel@creek> References: <1206973740.9859.29.camel@creek> Message-ID: <6ac749c10803311104n5acc784eh90f6e5dd5a49c74b@mail.gmail.com> Hi Chris, I will go through this and fix the mistakes. Thank you for your careful reading and comments. Feel free to mail us again. Cheers, Damien On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:29 PM, ckasso wrote: > Greetings, > > Page 54 second line from the bottom: > > super also refers to the receiver of the current method, but when you > > should begin a new paragraph. > > > Page 31 > > This template shows us Smalltalk expression that sends a message to a > > should read: > > This template shows us a Smalltalk expression that sends a message to a > > > Page 31 > > Actually, since SBECell does not exist yet, we passed as argument the > > should read: > > Actually, since SBECell does not exist yet, we passed as an argument the > > > Page 58 > > Blocks may also declare local variables, which are surround by vertical > > should read: > > Blocks may also declare local variables, which are surrounded by vertical > > > Page 58 > > Blocks are actually lexical closures, since they can refer to variables of > the surrounding environment. The following block refers the variable x of > its enclosing environment: > > should read: > > Blocks are actually lexical closures, since they can refer to variables of > the surrounding environment. The following block refers to the variable x of > its enclosing environment: > > or: > > Blocks are actually lexical closures, since they can reference variables of > the surrounding environment. The following block references the variable x of > its enclosing environment: > > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > Sbe-discussion mailing list > Sbe-discussion at iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/sbe-discussion > -- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ah?: ?I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck?. (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu)