Feedback

[goran.krampe at bluefish.se]

Hi all!

"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> I have delayed my response due to outstanding levels of work at school. 
> I'll be more responsive in two weeks!
> 
> The general strategy of having a set-of-packages as an item on SqueakMap
> sounds fine.  That strategy solves the most important goals, which IMHO
> are in order:
> 
> 	1. have a way to manage sets of packages and thus produce stable
> releases
> 
> 	2. have a way to auto-load dependencies

Right.

> Other achievements of Universes might be harder to map over, but even
> so, I can't say no to someone volunteering their time to keep this
> going, even if it loses some of the other nicities.  Whenever thoes

I will study Universes first.

> goals are met in SqueakMap, I'd be happy to help with migrating the
> existing stable and development universes over to the new mechanisms. 

Goodie. Will see, perhaps I can automate that when that time comes.

> While I think the universes model gives an impressive number of
> properties for its simplicity, I can't say no to someone volunteering to
> spend their time on keeping this all going.

Goodie :)
  
> As one nitpick, maybe 1 version of each package seems fine for stable
> releases but might not be enough for a development universe.  I find
> that as stable as Debian's "unstable" is, I still download an occasional
> broken package.  It is nice if the model allows more than one package to
> be available so that people can back up in this case.  Even so, Avi's
> general observation seems to remain: dependencies are simpler, due to
> there being very few versions of each package to choose from.
> 
> 
> -Lex
> 
> PS -- a number of people have objected to the name "universe".  Feel
> free to pick a different name, Goran, especially if the thing it names
> is somewhat different from a classical package universe.

Universe is quite fine with me I think.

Anyway, this sounds good - then I consider myself to have a green light
to move forward. Great!

regards, Göran