There has been an extensive amount of work on modules integrated into the image. You should review the hundreds of changesets that comprise the present module system in the 3.3alpha testpilot drive -- there is extensive documentation on the Swiki as well.
I think Andreas is on something really substantial.
His SqueakScript image is only the tip of an ice-berge.
We can expect a greater SqueakScript image real soon now. And by greater I mean smaller and bootstrap-able. And extensible to a minimal morphic Squeak image. Where MVC gets its death sentence. As well as something like 99% of the morphs.
In his own words, 'I am busy like hell'.
Let's hope that he's been busy chopping up the morphs. And when he has a random cycle to spare. Then maybe we will hear all these from the horse's mouth.
Cheers,
PhiHo.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew C. Greenberg" werdna@mucow.com To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 9:29 PM Subject: Re: [BUG?]Upgrading 3.2 to 3.3alpha
Roger:
There has been an extensive amount of work on modules integrated into the image. You should review the hundreds of changesets that comprise the present module system in the 3.3alpha testpilot drive -- there is extensive documentation on the Swiki as well.
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 06:16 PM, Roger Vossler wrote:
Hi Dan,
I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts about how block closures, and a number of related issues, are going to be integrated into Squeak and when. Also, there was another surge of interest in modules in June (305 messages) which seemed to have decayed off rather rapidly (49 messages in July and 6 messages in August). While everyone may be either on vacation or furiously writing code, I'd like to hear your thoughts on where the modules effort is headed, when it is likely to happen, and what the final (or interim) results are likely to look like. Comments from others would also be welcome.
Cheers, Roger.....
On Saturday, August 31, 2002, at 05:01 AM, Dan Ingalls wrote:
"Roger Vossler" rvossler@qwest.net asked...
I thought that Squeak Central was in control of the update process. Who exactly is the maintainer of the 3.2 fork and why did this fork take place? Is Squeak Central now out of the loop?
Hi, Roger -
Sorry about the misleading use of words. That maintainer was me. I had originally worded my reply as though Andrew had been maintaining his own image, and it said something like "you chose NO". Then I realized this is the case for any 3.2, so I changed it to this impersonal reference to the election of the fork to 3.2 in update > 4653.
And to answer the bigger question, no, SQC is not out of the loop (as far as we know ;-). On the contrary I expect various of us to be more active again as we get into the fall. I'll try to write down my thoughts about some of the current activities and how they might play together in a coherent manner as we go forward.
- Dan
[snip]