Where we are going with partitioning and harvesting etc.

Avi Bryant avi.bryant at gmail.com
Tue Jun 21 13:12:54 UTC 2005

Hi Göran,

Let me respond to the end of your message first:

> Ken asked "What are we waiting for?" and... I am not sure. The
> PI-partitioning bit - which is key here - should simply "be done" IMHO.
> I say let's get *a single person* to just do it and push a .cs into the
> stream which creates the PIs. I was inclined to get Doug to do it (being
> v3.9 boss and all), but I don't really care as long as someone does it.

The decision that I think we're all pretty comfortable with at this
point (at least, I haven't heard anything to the contrary) was to use
the iSqueak image as the basis for 3.9 going forward.  This already
has an initial partitioning done.  So, I think the plan is or would be
to reset the 3.9 stream and then dump in the changeset that creates
the iSqueak image.  Doug, is that what you're doing?  At any rate, I
agree: let's Just Do It.

>I had my sights set on this (brief description):
>         - Get Universes and SM playing together. As promised by me to Lex and
> the team.
>         - Use PIs to partition the image. The good ol TFNR idea, which Ken now
> also expresses in his post.
>         - Tie the PIs to corresponding SM entries. This is key to get the full
> connection to maintainers and their emails etc.
>         - Gradually move to maintaining these "image packages" as MCs "released
> on SM", instead of using changesets in the stream. This part obviously
> is different from the recent plans in the Package team.
>         - Add my planned dependency model in parallell with Universes. They in
> fact complement each other quite nicely when thinking more closely about
> it.
> Now it seems like the plan is to move to using something independent of
> SM, which means I have no idea on how to proceed with the above. Perhaps
> I am not interpreting the plan correct - then you all may of course
> explain it to me and slap me. :)

I don't think that much has changed.  I guess we're not talking, at
the moment, about using SM as infrastructure for the maintenance of
the core Squeak packages, but obviously it will continue to be used
exactly as it is now, to manage the hundreds of external packages, and
those need to be organized into stable sets of dependent versions as
much as they ever did.  So, I think we should keep to the plan of
integrating Universes and dependencies into SM.  It may be that once
that's done we can look at how much overlap there is with the
harvesting and releasing mechanisms we're talking about, and maybe do
some further integration, but I don't think we'll really know that
until we're further along.  For now, I think it makes sense to keep
them separate.


More information about the Packages mailing list