> On 17 Aug 2017, at 10:18, Herby Vojčík <he...@mailbox.sk> wrote: > > jtuc...@objektfabrik.de wrote: >> Herby, >> >> my ccomments were not meant to say you are not competent enough to fix >> Glorp. I know you have been active as the maintainer of Amber for quite >> a while now and know you are an experienced Smalltalker. So this is not > > Not really. Actually, never did any production-ready project in Smalltalk. > The one I do now is the first time. > >> an attempt to make you look incompetent or "unqualified". >> >> I just wanted to point out that >> >> * I think that if there is a bug in Glorp, it should be communicated >> to the maintainers in order to make sure the fix is making it into >> newer Glorp versions and from there to all dialects that have a port > > Yeah, sure. But Esteban's mail suggested that it is a long process, so maybe > it _is_ beneficial to try to shortcut the fix at Pharo side. > > Don't know the local politics, so can't say myself.
Is not about politics :) basically: cincom does not maintains other platforms than themselves (and *I am not* complaining, this is a fair choice, we do the same with pharo related things). So if we want to keep the port updated is this community who has to do it. Now, in the case of Glorp this is not easy to do and last year we (the consortium) spent money to get an updated port. Now, if there is a bug and is *we* who found it, I would like to have a fix for our port (and of course inform it to cincom guys). In fact… complexity is so big in this project that every port of Glorp from VW to Pharo is a “de facto” fork (not desired, but necessary). And any new port/update of the port will require important efforts we cannot do at the moment (I guess we could diff versions and update just the changes we find… just to simplify. But still, this is a lot of work :P). Anyway, this is why if we have the opportunity to fix a bug in our platform, I would apply it regardless the cincom process (and our own update process). cheers, Esteban > >> of Glorp (Smalltalk is too much of a niche to be able to stand more >> and more niche-ification of forks and stuff, esp. for such a central >> part as Glorp which are way too important to only be maintained by >> one or two developers - which they unfortunately are, at least to my >> knowledge) > > :-( > >> * I am not sure if anybody from Cincom is listening here looking for >> Glorp problems, so I saw/see the danger of "private" fixes / forks >> * I fixed a few bugs in Glorp in the past just to find out that the >> concept was correct but the place to fix it was wrong (or at least >> would not heal all related problems). Glorp is complex and it has >> lots of layers. It is a good example of the "avoid responsibility" >> concept that was once (what a coincidence) formulated by Alan Knight >> in an article named "All I've learned about object orientation I >> learnt from Dilbert" (or similar) - so I was gad Niall looked into > > Yeah, the classic (that is, for me; lots of ppl out there do not know it, > though they should). > >> these and gave me feedback as well as a "full" fix > > Yeah, that would be nice. > >> So I mainly ask you to post your fix and problem description to the >> Glorp Mailing list / Google group. It would be a pity if your fix is > > I posted (that is, I tried to; I hope it got there). > > Maybe I should reply there with a few more words... or find out if it got > there in the first place. > > >> buried in some fork of Glorp. >> >> Joachim > > Herby >
