Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 10:26:05AM +0100, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > marcus at ira.uka.de wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> > > What I want to  say: We have a HUGE Problem with
> > > reviewing and Harvesting changes. If we don't fix this, than Squeak will
> > > die. It's
> > > as simple as that.
> > 
> > I agree Marcus but my impression is that things are moving in the right
> > direction? If it is not then I gladly discuss alternative approaches -
> > as all of us I guess gladly do.
> > 
> Yes, I think we have finally started to move. And that's good. And
> I think the process is good that we have with the ArchiveViewer.

Good. I haven't had time to participate yet so I am interested to hear
what people think.

Sidenote: I am too sometimes wondering if we actually need a more
"aggressive" process - a process which doesn't rely on Harvesting at
all. But I think we really need much better tools for collaboration to
do that. Again - these are thoughts about the future - I am not putting
down the current process.

> Maybe it was somewhat late last night ;-) But got a little depressed
> with all that stuff waiting and not that much happening... especially
> with the idea of having yet-another Squeak release with no enduser-visible
> changes at all... I started to feel envisioning the harvesters like someone 
> dusting off all those great artifacts in the "Smalltalk Museum" After a
> lot of work, everything is nicely documented, sparcling clean... 

:-)
 
> This is not to say that well factored, documented code is not important:
> It is! But it can't be a purpose, it's a necessity. (to paraphrase Dee
> Hock)... 
> 
>        Marcus

Right. But perhaps we will all need to get used to the fact that most of
the "exciting stuff" happens in packages and not in the base image.

AFAIK we are meant to include TTF, Diego's stuff and perhaps some more
"visual" stuff. Are there any other particular things out there that you
are thinking about?

regards, Göran