On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:05:17 -0800, Dan Ingalls Dan@squeakland.org wrote:
Greetings Florin, Goran, Cees, Steven, Brian, David, and Craig, Ned, Colin! ... and anyone else who is interested but hasn't yet said so.
I've been away from squeak-dev for a week (and my, what a week of traffic to catch up on), but - count me in. I liked what Craig said about designer/implementor/user: I too, would *love* to just be a user, but I recognize that my needs as a user may not be met without doing some design, and I've long been used to the fact that design is useless unless you commit to implementing it :).
As to what I'd like to see in such a system, Colin's already talked about our plans for the next major iteration of Monticello; obviously, I'd hope that our work there will somehow play a role in the module work - even if (or perhaps ideally if) that role is "modules isn't going to address versioning, that's Monticello's job". That is, in fact, another key aspect of what I think is important in going forward: the word "module" can describe solutions to so many different kinds of problems, and I think it's critical that we are clear from the start about which problems we are trying to solve, and not conflate the solutions to too many of them into one mechanism. The flip side of that is that we not solve the same problem multiple times: versioning and partitioning may be separate problems, but a versioning mechanism should build on the partitioning mechanism used by the rest of the image, not invent its own (as Store effectively does in VW).
Forgive me if I'm saying things that are obvious or have already been said in the maze of threads that have popped up recently; I *think* I've seen most of the relevant postings but it's hard to be sure when not reading them as they come in...
Avi
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org