<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org> said:
>There are two (well, 723 to be exact, but these two are interesting)
>issues we really need to start discussing:
>
I'd preferred two threads...

>Core packages [...]
Agreed, although I probably would like to make a distinction between
'core' and 'base'. However, this could be the distinction between 'core'
and 'extra' in your topology - what I'd like to have is 'absolutely
minimal Squeak' (language, VM, Object+Collections+reifications in the
class lib) and 'minimally usable Squeak' (dev tools, networking, GUI).

>Personally I do think it could be placed in core. It seems to be such an
>elegant extension solving a lot of problems. But some people probably
>wants Squeak to stay as a "Smalltalk clone" and be as compatible with
>other Smalltalks as possible. Well, I am not one of them - but it will
>be interesting to see the discussion unfold.
>
As far as my vote counts, I'm in favour of adding it to the Core. There
is a nice grey-striped suit Smalltalk for Smalltalk work out there (more
than one, I just know VW ;-)), I think it's time to move on for Squeak. 

First and foremost, it does not break backward compability. So it's not
a 'burn the diskpacks' action, all existing code will keep working.
Second, it promises to be a great tool to clean up the areas of Squeak
that badly need cleaning up, and will help us a lot in separating
functionality out in finer grained packages.

What I'm sorely missing on the Big Todo list, btw, is namespacing. 

-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg at cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
Cogito ergo evigilo