3.9alpha update stream (was Re: source.squeakfoundation.org)
avi.bryant at gmail.com
Thu Jun 30 10:20:28 UTC 2005
On 6/30/05, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Depends on whether you wanted to have the system fully packagized or
> not. This is a key question - I have no interest whatsover in another
> "partially packaged" system. We have this already.
I'm certainly with you on having a fully packagized system; the main
question I have is whether we want to fully packagize it eagerly or
lazily. You've done a great job of getting the bulk of the packaging
done, and that may be enough to start with; as long as we have a fully
packagized *process*, the rest can come along at a slower rate. That
is, if there's no way to submit a FIX or ENH, or get an update from
the stream, for code that's not packagized, then the first time we
need to actually change one of those loose methods, it will get dealt
with - and probably more thoughtfully than if we try to do them all at
once now. Another strategy might be to recategorize them to all be in
an *orphaned package rather than creating tons of tiny packages, with
the rule that when you modify a method in that package, you need to
try to move it out (so it should shrink over time).
But that's just my $0.02 - if others are less inclined to punt, and
want to do it properly up front, great. It might not turn out to be
that much work.
> No! Please, no! Not "as if" - make it the real thing! What is the
> problem with just downloading the package and installing it? If people
> don't want to wait they can always just grab a preloaded image.
Fair enough. I suspect most people will just grab the preloaded one anyway.
More information about the Packages