I just tried to install SmaCC-Development from SqueakMap into a fresh 3.6 image and I got an error because SmaCC tries to add a method to TestCase which no longer exists in 3.6.
Why are we removing packages before the package infrastructure is completely implemented (including dependents)? It doesn't make sense.
Cheers, Anthony
Anthony's post brings up something I was thinking about recently... Should SUnit be part of the Basic configuration?
The Basic configuration is the platform containing all the essential development tools, I believe. The IDE, basically. We haven't really strictly defined this, but this is what the original idea was. (Side note: I don't think there's a swiki page or anything covering what Full/Basic/Minimal are... we should write this down somewhere.)
Is SUnit an essential development tool? I would say yes... we are trying to encourage folks to include tests with fixes, and requiring test packages for Squeak-official packages.
If we decide that SUnit should be part of Basic, this also means that we should add it back into the update stream now, since we decided to move toward Basic before we start continuing to Minimal. I think this is probably a good idea anyway as a matter of convenience until SM 1.1 and dependencies are ready. (This is the only removed package that I think might belong in Basic... the others (Balloon3D, VMMaker, etc.) should probably stay out.)
Thoughts?
- Doug
On Saturday, June 28, 2003, at 09:21 PM, Anthony Hannan wrote:
I just tried to install SmaCC-Development from SqueakMap into a fresh 3.6 image and I got an error because SmaCC tries to add a method to TestCase which no longer exists in 3.6.
Why are we removing packages before the package infrastructure is completely implemented (including dependents)? It doesn't make sense.
Cheers, Anthony
Hi doug,
Anthony's post brings up something I was thinking about recently... Should SUnit be part of the Basic configuration?
The Basic configuration is the platform containing all the essential development tools, I believe. The IDE, basically. We haven't really strictly defined this, but this is what the original idea was. (Side note: I don't think there's a swiki page or anything covering what Full/Basic/Minimal are... we should write this down somewhere.)
Is SUnit an essential development tool? I would say yes... we are trying to encourage folks to include tests with fixes, and requiring test packages for Squeak-official packages.
If BASIC means tools essential for development then SUnit should be in. (but we should be able to remove it easily because new versions of Sunit are coming :).
If we decide that SUnit should be part of Basic, this also means that we should add it back into the update stream now, since we decided to move toward Basic before we start continuing to Minimal. I think this is probably a good idea anyway as a matter of convenience until SM 1.1 and dependencies are ready. (This is the only removed package that I think might belong in Basic... the others (Balloon3D, VMMaker, etc.) should probably stay out.)
Thoughts?
- Doug
Stephane Ducasse ducasse@iam.unibe.ch wrote: [SNIP]
Is SUnit an essential development tool? I would say yes... we are trying to encourage folks to include tests with fixes, and requiring test packages for Squeak-official packages.
If BASIC means tools essential for development then SUnit should be in. (but we should be able to remove it easily because new versions of Sunit are coming :).
Since it is still a package that is per definition. The only things we are still adding as updates are fixes to stuff not yet in packages and enhancements to stuff not yet in packages. We would never think of adding a "packages" as an update.
Anyway, I agree with Doug.
regards, Göran
goran.krampe@bluefish.se wrote:
Stephane Ducasse ducasse@iam.unibe.ch wrote: [SNIP]
Is SUnit an essential development tool? I would say yes... we are trying to encourage folks to include tests with fixes, and requiring test packages for Squeak-official packages.
If BASIC means tools essential for development then SUnit should be in. (but we should be able to remove it easily because new versions of Sunit are coming :).
Since it is still a package that is per definition. The only things we are still adding as updates are fixes to stuff not yet in packages and enhancements to stuff not yet in packages. We would never think of adding a "packages" as an update.
Anyway, I agree with Doug.
Probably what we should do is make it like the SqueakMap/SAR/etc updates. The current version of SUnit would be included as an update, but it would also be registered as a loaded SM package. (So that it would show up in your list of installed packages in the SMLoader, and you could upgrade to newer versions via SM, etc.)
- Doug Way
Doug Way wrote:
goran.krampe@bluefish.se wrote:
Stephane Ducasse ducasse@iam.unibe.ch wrote: [SNIP]
Is SUnit an essential development tool? I would say yes... we are trying to encourage folks to include tests with fixes, and requiring test packages for Squeak-official packages.
If BASIC means tools essential for development then SUnit should be in. (but we should be able to remove it easily because new versions of Sunit are coming :).
Since it is still a package that is per definition. The only things we are still adding as updates are fixes to stuff not yet in packages and enhancements to stuff not yet in packages. We would never think of adding a "packages" as an update.
Anyway, I agree with Doug.
Probably what we should do is make it like the SqueakMap/SAR/etc updates. The current version of SUnit would be included as an update, but it would also be registered as a loaded SM package. (So that it would show up in your list of installed packages in the SMLoader, and you could upgrade to newer versions via SM, etc.)
- Doug Way
And to be clear, we would only include the SUnit package, not the base image tests or any other tests.
- Doug Way
Hi,
This thread makes me remember a discussion I had with somebody about Squeak distribution names. If I rember well, the plan is to have two distributions a big one with all/most of packages/modules/projects and a small one.
That's fine for me. My point here is about naming. I think that the full image should be the one to be downloaded by newbies or people that just want to discover what is Squeak. This is why I think it should be named "default".
Noury
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 09:34:44PM +0200, nbo@ensm-douai.fr wrote:
Hi,
This thread makes me remember a discussion I had with somebody about Squeak distribution names. If I rember well, the plan is to have two distributions a big one with all/most of packages/modules/projects and a small one.
Actually, three (eventually): Minimal, Basic, and Full.
That's fine for me. My point here is about naming. I think that the full image should be the one to be downloaded by newbies or people that just want to discover what is Squeak. This is why I think it should be named "default".
I actually like the other names better, as they are more descriptive than "default".
Joshua
Noury
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 09:34:44PM +0200, nbo@ensm-douai.fr wrote:
Hi,
This thread makes me remember a discussion I had with somebody about Squeak distribution names. If I rember well, the plan is to have two distributions a big one with all/most of packages/modules/projects and a small one.
Actually, three (eventually): Minimal, Basic, and Full.
That's fine for me. My point here is about naming. I think that the full image should be the one to be downloaded by newbies or people that just want to discover what is Squeak. This is why I think it should be named "default".
I actually like the other names better, as they are more descriptive than "default".
I agree that these names are descriptive. And we should keep them. But, my suggestion is to tag the full distribution as default. This would help people who are new to squeak to choose the distribution to start with.
Noury
Hi Doug - yes, I think SUnit and any applicable tests should be included wherever possible. Something so impactful on reliability is not bloat.
Simon Michael wrote:
Hi Doug - yes, I think SUnit and any applicable tests should be included wherever possible. Something so impactful on reliability is not bloat.
The SUnit framework -- yes.
All of the tests -- no. They should be externally loadable.
It is very annoying to have to fish through the dropdown list of TestRunner for my own tests when it is only 4 or 5 of hundreds.
And I don't really care to test OrderedCollection, Set, etc., every time I want to run, say, my Customer or Invoice tests.
Nevin
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Anthony Hannan -
Doug Way -
goran.krampe＠bluefish.se -
Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus -
nbo＠ensm-douai.fr -
Nevin Pratt -
Noury Bouraqadi -
Simon Michael -
Stephane Ducasse