for SqueakSource...

Marcus Denker denker at
Fri Jan 13 08:25:14 UTC 2006

On 12.01.2006, at 23:33, Cees De Groot wrote:

> On 1/12/06, Ken Causey <ken at> wrote:
>> I'm certainly happy to set you up with some hostname but I
>> wonder if this wouldn't be even more confusing than the current
>> situation.  I would expect to find the source of Squeak itself at
>> rather than that of external packages.
> In the light of the debates around 'forking', the move to a split
> between "package maintainers" and "distribution builders", etcetera, I
> don't think it is too important where packages are hosted. Nor do I
> think that we can really keep up a sensible distinction between
> "external" and "internal" packages - look at Monticello,
> RefactoringBrowser, OmniBrowser, Traits, etcetera. So I'm not really
> subscribing to that argument to keep two repositories.
> was setup because we thought we might need
> a different authorization protocol, or whatever - to give us the
> freedom to hack the sources. However, as far as I know (I'm not too
> deeply involved with that squeaksource instance), this hasn't
> happened. 'inbox' and 'v39a' could run just as well on
> as on
> with an eye towards network effects and reduced maintenance load on
> the community, it might be wise to merge both setups and call the
> result ''...

Yes... could be...
One problem is that there are a lot of packages on squeaksource, so the
"official" ones would get lost soon. But that could be solved by having

Whatever we decide on, it's the next step, I think.

First get the kilana setup moved to the new server, then we see further.
For us it would help to have another domain for testing our apache setup
before moving over.



More information about the Box-admins mailing list