KCP looking for external reviewers
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sat Apr 5 13:08:42 UTC 2003
> [changes not independent]
> For the general harvest process, this would make me not approve them.
> But I answer your specific case on the SqF thread.
How can we create changeset that are not dependent. If I move method A
from class B to class B. Then if later on we want to fix another aspect
and we have to modify method A this method A will be on classB. So the
two changesets ARE dependent. Sorry I do not see how we could do that
in another way.
But I'm not on SqF list.
> [SystemDictionary is kept as part of the kernel, to be partitioned
> later, with some parts outside the kernel (IIUC)]
>>> In change 11, you implement
>>> Behavior>>allUnsentMessages by referencing the current environment,
>>> instead of Smalltalk. Why not remove it completely? what's your
>>> rationale for leaving functionality in the kernel, or moving it out,
>>> into something else?
>> I have to check but the idea was to avoid big bang changes which we
>> could do
>> but nobody we not get it.
> I didn't understand that.
I want to say that this would be easier for us to work like mad during
3 weeks and
produce a new kernel than generating tiny changesets one after the
> I'm trying to understand what should in your
> opinion be the functionality of the kernel, and what should be outside.
UI should be out,
everything related to class compiled method should be in. I do not want
to go into the detail but we want to have a core with layers and be
able to deploy a image with just the core so we should not have
dependencies between core layers and external layers.
Prof. Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE
"if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do
different? ... especially if,
by doing something different, today might not be your last day on
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it..." Alan Kay.
Open Source Smalltalks: http://www.squeak.org,
Free books for Universities at
Free Online Book at
More information about the Squeak-dev