rwuyts at vub.ac.be
Tue Sep 26 14:54:29 UTC 2000
> Les Tyrrell wrote:
>> > How can we get your approach integrated into mainline Squeak?
>> A better question would be how do we get mainline Squeak embedded into
> the modular approach.
>> As I see it, the best route is to first of all identify all those folks
> who are doing
>> similar things, and get them onboard. [snip]
> OK. Anyone else care to chime in?
I am interested, but because of lack of time I will currently watch from the
>> Second, in terms of bringing Squeak into this world, at this time I think
> the best approach is
>> to start from the very first release and work forwards.
> Much agreement. Might I suggest 1.13 or 1.16 as the last release
> pre-Disney? Then we could incorporate a clear licensing apporach to
> contributions (i.e. every specific contribution has a license granted by
> a specific organization or person with reference to a paper document or
> email granting permission -- and unlicensed contributions are flagged as
> such so the end user knows the liability).
> I tried to run 1.13 and 1.16 on my NT system a few months back but had a
> problems looking at the sources.
Might I propose to to make the scope even bigger, and start from a shrinked
image (Squeak stable image). I think this has lots of benefits for both
projects (if I understand correctly what you want to do, there is overlap
between this project and the stable Squeak project launched by John
Sarkela). I am afraid that by starting from the very first release we will
lose a lot of development tools and bugfixes while we are bootstrapping. Of
course, starting with the shrunk image has its problems too. Whatever
approach, it is maybe a god thing to incorporate the lessons learned from
the stable squeak project (and vice versa).
[lots of other things snipped]
Roel Wuyts Programming Technology Lab
rwuyts at vub.ac.be Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Webmaster of European Smalltalk User Group: www.esug.org
More information about the Squeak-dev