> 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.

    I think Andreas is on something really substantial.

    His SqueakScript image is only the tip of an ice-berge.

    We can expect a greater SqueakScript image real soon now.
    And by greater I mean smaller and bootstrap-able.
    And extensible to a minimal morphic Squeak image.
    Where MVC gets its death sentence.
    As well as something like 99% of the morphs.

    In his own words, 'I am busy like hell'.

    Let's hope that he's been busy chopping up the morphs.
    And when he has a random cycle to spare.
    Then maybe we will hear all these from the horse's mouth.

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [BUG?]Upgrading 3.2 to 3.3alpha


> 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]
> >
> >
> 
>