Hi Stephen--

> What I would like to see is the squat image versioned, followed by an
> effort to start packaging up subsystems in the base Squeak system
> such that they can be loaded into a squat image. Some sort of
> infrastucture to be able to do that in an automated fashion from some
> sort of configuration description could be built along the way.

	That's the plan! :)  For my own work, I'm hoping that said description
can be provided in a live conversation with another Squeak system, not
only from static file bits (although I'd like that to be an option).

> Once you've got a reasonable 1.0 version of the squat image, I would
> like to take on a subsystem or two from base squeak and make it loadable
> in the squat image.

	Excellent.

> Also, I think such a process is likely to be the most viable path
> to get to a modularized squeak.

	I agree (although I don't yet think it's going to be any easier than
previous efforts :).


	thanks,

-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
craig at netjam.org
www.netjam.org/resume
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]