About 3.6 alpha process: to break the less

Stephane Ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Wed Jun 4 11:55:38 UTC 2003


Diego

if this is your conviction, do not participate. But I think that
this brings us back in prehistorical ages....monolithic ages.

Stef


On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 11:37 AM, <diegogomezdeck at consultar.com> 
wrote:

> Hi Stef,
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> From my point of view I did not get a clear answer to my question. How
>> do you think we should proceed.
>
> You asked, I assume you want to hear my answers.
>
>> Now I'm stuck: working in 3.5 and producing a lot of
>>  changesets that will not load in 3.6,
>> spending time to remove the change related to the removed 
>> classes.....I
>>  still think that wer are doing too much
>> at the same time.
>
> IMO, This is not the source of the problems.  The source of the 
> problems is
> the extreme-minimalist approach that caught us.
>
> We are trying to make the standard image smaller and modular but we 
> have
> not support at all to do that.  The current version of Squeak (and I'm 
> not
> meaning the size of the image) allows the mess, so the mess will be 
> there.
> (pseudo-off-topic: did you read "Behavior of Information"?
> http://www.truxton.com/~trux/etc/boi/).
>
> We trust that a smaller default image will solve our problems but, in 
> fact,
> we're creating more problems than then problems we're fixing.
>
>> If I have one hour to clean the kernel, I do not have
>>  one hour to fix the changesets I already produced and fix the kernel.
>
> This is not the worst part of the history.  The worst part is: The 
> work we
> (mcp & kcp) are doing will vanish with the nexts updates.
>
>> So I will try to find some time to play with conflictchecker but again
>> I will not be cleaning.
>>
>> I agree with tim, I would like to arrive fast to a core that is stable
>> and I would like to focus on that and push the other guys here to 
>> help.
>
> So, my short answer is: If we want a modular image [*], let's implement
> some modules mechanism before creating the pseudo-modules we're working
> on.  Probably we'll need also some type of namespacing support.
>
> [*] I'm not sure I want to pay the price to have a modular image.  
> When I
> work with ST-Dialects with packages/parcels/application/yourNameHere I 
> feel
> so constrained.  The monolithic image can have problems, but the 
> freedom it
> gives is not present in more-declarative environments.
>
>> Stef
>
> Cheers,
>
> Diego
>
>
>
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list