[squeak-dev] Re: Edgar from the Ostracism Re: Squeak 4.1 release candidate 2

Josh Gargus josh at schwa.ca
Tue Apr 6 17:21:30 UTC 2010

Hi Edgar,

On Apr 6, 2010, at 4:50 AM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> The default image should be SqueakCore as we know today.

I'm looking at the SL3dot11-9579-alpha.image... is this what you mean by SqueakCore?  I'll assume so.

I'm still don't understand what you're trying to achieve, so please help me to understand...

> All packages not in Core should go to squeaksource and have one or more
> Squeakers as maintainers or die.

We have that already... anything not in trunk needs to be maintained externally or die.  Is the issue which packages should be included in Core?

When I glance at SqueakCore side-by-side with 4.1rc2, they look mostly the same.  There are some packages removed (Nebraska, SqueakMap, Tests, PreferenceBrowser, ScriptLoader, Etoys, Services, Universes, XML-Parser).

There are also some packages that are left in that maybe should be removed (MorphicExtras, ShoutCore), and even one added (Comanche).

My point is that saying "look at SqueakCore" is not a useful answer to the question "what should release 4.2 look like?".  I don't know what it means.  It doesn't explain why you made the decisions that you did, what's not finished, etc.  Why remove XML-Parser but add Comanche?  How was the decision made?  These are questions that I don't know the answer to, and cannot possibly figure out by looking at the image.  Hearing that "the default image should be SqueakCore as we know today" doesn't answer the question for me.

> All load of out of image packages should be via Monticello.
> No loaders by default.

Are you saying that we shouldn't include Gofer or Installer by default?  I don't have an opinion one way or the other.  I see that you do have an opinion, but I don't know your reasons.  Can you explain why?

> Squeak need SOB word about the release process.
> And Squeak is not only for 42 persons who understand each only some parts of
> the system each (except you).

What does this mean?  In what way is SqueakCore better for everybody that 4.1rc2 is not?  They look almost identical to me. You feel very strongly about something, but I don't know what it is.  The current situation is unsatisfactory to you, and you point at the SqueakCore image to show how things could be better.  However, when I look at SqueakCore I don't see the difference that you seem to think should be obvious.  Can you try to explain yourself more slowly and clearly, so that I can understand?

> We have wider audience now, tell loud once more time.
> And we want any could made Squeak his/her home.
> Meaning all should be as easier and consistent as possible.

Please, what are some concrete examples of how SqueakCore is easier and more consistent than 4.1?  Even better would be some general principles that we could follow to improve either SqueakCore or 4.1.


> Edgar

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list