"Brent Vukmer" <bvukmer at blackboard.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
> > Rough plan for 3.6
> > 
> > 1. We are proposing to kick off 3.6 by applying the package removals
> > currently registered on SM. These will need to be extensively tested
> > before added to the update stream of course - so this 
> > shouldn't hold up
> > general harvesting - but we still feel it should be done ASAP.
> >
> 
> Looks like a good plan, Goran.

Well, hopefully a good start. :-)

> Before approving a package removal update, are you guys going to require that an approved installation script for that package is on SqueakMap?

If by "installation script" you mean the package itself - then the
answer is yes. :-) But if you refer to the "verification" packages I am
babbling about then probably not.

I am not sure. What I have realized though is that the integration
testing of all packages is going to get **really** boring unless we can
somehow automate it.

But perhaps we could do without this for these first rounds - I don't
know, what do you all think?

Remember that the removed packages can be installed in different order,
one by one etc...

(In SM1.1 I am introducing a concept of "attachments" to packages which
we could use for such "addon" packages, like the available unit tests
(which could probably act as the installation verification), example
code etc.)

> Also, how about creating a window ( sorta like the "Welcome" window ) that lists the removals and has links to the installation scripts?

Sure, but all those seems a bit... too much to read. But I do agree we
can put a few in there and of course - the load script that builds the
Full image should of course be a link there.

regards, Göran