Roger:

There has been an extensive amount of work on modules integrated into 
the image.  You should review the hundreds of changesets that comprise 
the present module system in the 3.3alpha testpilot drive -- there is 
extensive documentation on the Swiki as well.

On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 06:16 PM, Roger Vossler wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts about how block 
> closures, and a number of related
> issues, are going to be integrated into Squeak and when. Also, there 
> was another surge of interest
> in modules in June (305 messages) which seemed to have decayed off 
> rather rapidly (49 messages
> in July and 6 messages in August). While everyone may be either on 
> vacation or furiously writing
> code, I'd like to hear your thoughts on where the modules effort is 
> headed, when it is likely to happen,
> and what the final (or interim) results are likely to look like. 
> Comments from others would also be
> welcome.
>
> Cheers, Roger.....
>
> On Saturday, August 31, 2002, at 05:01 AM, Dan Ingalls wrote:
>
>> "Roger Vossler" <rvossler at qwest.net> asked...
>>
>>> I thought that Squeak Central was in control of the update process. 
>>> Who exactly is the maintainer
>>> of the 3.2 fork and why did this fork take place? Is Squeak Central 
>>> now out of the loop?
>>
>> Hi, Roger -
>>
>> Sorry about the misleading use of words.  That maintainer was me.  I 
>> had originally worded my reply as though Andrew had been maintaining 
>> his own image, and it said something like "you chose NO".  Then I 
>> realized this is the case for any 3.2, so I changed it to this 
>> impersonal reference to the election of the fork to 3.2 in update > 
>> 4653.
>>
>> And to answer the bigger question, no, SQC is not out of the loop (as 
>> far as we know ;-).  On the contrary I expect various of us to be 
>> more active again as we get into the fall.  I'll try to write down my 
>> thoughts about some of the current activities and how they might play 
>> together in a coherent manner as we go forward.
>>
>> 	- Dan
>> --------------------------
>
> [snip]
>
>