> >It's a dead end. Complain - and you are told to fix it.
> >Fix it, and no one does anything with the fix.
> 
> Really? Then how do you account for over 1300 change sets have been folded
> into Squeak since 3.0?

Useless comment. Obviously a certain amount of changes are accepted or
Squeak would not be evolving at all. I claimed there were high-quality
changes out there that weren't accepted. This claim does not imply that
*NO* changes are accepted.

(The part you quoted above should be taken in that context.)

[ stuff about the inefficiency of software vendors snipped ]

All that may be true; my point was the there are existing improvements
out there that don't get accepted even if they are clearly superior to
what's in the image. Surely Microsoft didn't have Windows 2000 laying
around 8 years ago, or they would have released it (given the pethetic
state of Windows back then compared to competetors). The situation I'm
talking about is that their *IS* code out there - just not in the image.
I'm not criticizing the amount of development for Squeak (I have no
right to do so), I'm just point out that there seems to be certain
"inhibitors" in the release process that results in less high-quality
Squeak enhancements being in the image than is desirable.

-- 
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB

PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <peter.schuller at infidyne.com>'
Key retrival: Send an E-Mail to getpgpkey at scode.org
E-Mail: peter.schuller at infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org