Hi - thanks of the detailed answer, I had to take a break from my investigation
but I am keen to get it working again.
Its a shame I didn’t spot the survey on the name nomenclature because I liked
the old system as it makes it much more obvious from the name exactly what you
are getting - e.g. a Moose Build , vs Pharo 4.0 - (I would say this,
as I implemented it). Its a shame you didn’t make it a feature switchable thing
as I think you’ve lost useful functionality. I will probably put it back and
propose it as an option (if it’s veto’d I’ll maintain my own version - but a
switch should hopefully satisfy everyone).
I’ll also see if we can make it look nice again - as Launcher used to be a good
showcase of how to make a Pharo app look beautiful.
Tim
> On 28 Jun 2016, at 13:59, Christophe Demarey
> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
>> Le 27 juin 2016 à 22:12, Tim Mackinnon a écrit :
>>
>> Hi guys - I finally got some free time to take a look at Pharo-5 and wanted
>> Launcher back as well - I just downloaded it on my mac and I’m wondering if
>> something is wrong?
>>
>> The UI doesn’t look right (compared to the older 4.x version) - the top
>> panel is white, and there is a grey run button next to the green one (the
>> triangle) that seems to be missing transparency - so it all looks quite
>> ugly. Have I downloaded something that is wrong?
>
> No, is the current state of Pharo Launcher UI. I did not touch to this part
> but, yes, could be improved.
>
>> I also notice, that when I go to create a new image from a template - the
>> name prompt isn’t as good as the old version which used to include the
>> parent node in the suggested name so you got something like “Pharo 6.0
>> (beta) 123455” as a descriptive name - it now just seems to offer “1234456”
>> as the name now?
>
> I did this change after a small survey on pharo launcher users that were,
> like me, bothered with previous proposed names: in most cases, they only want
> the name of their project. That could be discussed but now, in your example,
> you get 60121 that is still descriptive. Here, we should find the best
> proposition for most users, will not for to all.
>
>> I don’t understand the how the paths work now - it seems that my old images
>> launch fine, but a 5.x image doesn’t? Do I set the spur path for this - or
>> is it the other way around (vm-path should be the new vm)? The floating help
>> isn’t very descriptive on this.
>
> Pharo launcher is now shipped with both vm (pre-spur and spur). The cog-spur
> vm now powered PharoLauncher and should be used to run spur images. If not,
> maybe you have a wrong setting for it. If you remove settings for both VM it
> should work. Maybe I should remove these settings since both VMs are now
> shipped with the launcher app. I do not know if it is relevant to some of you
> to use another VM than the default ones.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
> Christophe
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 17 Jun 2016, at 13:10, Christophe Demarey
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Now fixed. I replaced the DMG on files.pharo.org.
>>> Thanks for the report
>>>
> Le 17 juin 2016 à 13:34, Christophe Demarey
> a écrit :
>
>
> Le 17 juin 2016 à 12:00, Serge Stinckwich a
> écrit :
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Christophe Demarey
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just updated Pharo Launcher. A new version 0.2.11 is available.
>> Here are the change log:
>
> Great ! Thank you for the update.
>
>> move Pharo Launcher to the latest stable pharo image: pharo 5.0. It
>> implies
>> That Pharo Launcher is now shipped with Spur VM.
>> allow an easy download of the new beta image: pharo 6.0
>> the Launcher now comes with 2 VMs:
>>
>> Spur VM (pharo 5.0 and Pharo 6.0)
>> Non-Spur VM (to be able to run old images)
>
> I dl the mac version. I was not able to run non-spur VM images: the
> launcher crash or do nothing ...
Indeed, I think it’s a side effect of latest changes I did after testing
on Windows.
I take a look at it now
>>
>>
>>
>
>
