avi.bryant at gmail.com
Mon Mar 7 11:44:45 UTC 2005
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:58:56 +0100, goran.krampe at bluefish.se
<goran.krampe at bluefish.se> wrote:
> Evidently it is dangerous not being online for a weekend.
Ah, I wondered why squeak-dev was so quiet... ;)
> 1. If I read you right Avi, you suggest us sticking with PI as it stands
For now, yes.
> Also, Ned has recently posted a
> "power pack" for PI including some split-changesets-based-on-PIs that I
> and he wrote independently.
Yes, that will be very useful for the partitioning work I'm sure.
> 2. Your initial post didn't clearly express the idea that we can indeed
> "stake out" the image without having to actually "break out" parts of
> it. I think that piece of the puzzle is important.
Agreed. I would put it this way: in most cases, it is more important
to be able to save and update parts of the image as packages, than it
is to be able to unload and load those same parts.
> 1. Lex mentions a few needs currently not being addressed by SM. One is
> the ability to have "private" repos - or in other words to decentralize
> SM into multiple connected servers in some way.
A small clarification, here: what I believe Lex and I were talking
about was not "multiple connected servers", but multiple independent
servers. The client should be able to integrate the information from
these various servers, but I don't believe that we need or want the
servers themselves to be aware of each other.
> 4. Universes. I intend to look into Lex's code again more carefully and
> try to figure out how to either:
> a) Make it work "with" SM. But this is only interesting if Lex or
> someone else wants to continue maintaining Universes and nor merging it
> with SM.
> b) Merge the concepts and mechanisms with SM so that the sum is greater
> than the parts.
Yes. One thing that I'm hoping will come out of this list is a better
understanding of how to have one solution which has the advantages of
More information about the Packages