Celeste and FilteringCeleste

Adam Spitz adamspitz at alumni.uwaterloo.ca
Mon Jun 2 22:30:06 UTC 2003


Lex Spoon wrote:

> The thing is that no individual is able to make major changes to
> the "main" Celeste.  There's no designated maintainer, Squeak
> Central doesn't maintain it, and the harvesters are too
> conservative.

A couple of months ago, my name ended up in the Maintainer slot on the
Celeste package, because I'm a Celeste user and I didn't like the idea
of Celeste going without a maintainer. I'm not particularly well-suited
to the job; I only got it because I offered to do it and nobody else
did. I haven't done much since then - just integrated a few small
patches that had been lying around for a while. I'm happy to integrate
(or negotiate over) code that people send me (and I'll take a look at
that enhancement Steve Elkins just posted), but I'm not actively doing
any work of my own on Celeste.


> I never thought I needed to say it explicitly, but I'd certainly be very
> happy for FC to be considered "the" maintained version of Celeste.

Thank you for saying it explicitly! :)

If you like, I'll be happy to help you go through the code and figure
out which things C has that FC doesn't have. If we can get FC to the
point where it's better than C in every way, maybe everyone will start
using FC instead (as you said, SqueakMap makes it easy) and I can go
back to lurking. :)


Adam



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list