Hi all!

Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
[SNIP of reflections]
> Or, the other strategy is to just incorporate all 10 removals right 
> now, and it's up to the package maintainers to make sure the re-added 
> packages work properly and resolve conflicts with other packages.  
> Also, we'd have to deal with any problems caused by the 10 removals, 
> but those should less of a problem. (at least for these early "easy" 
> removals)
>
> I think I'm still leaning toward the "remove all 10 right now" strategy 
> since the removals have been out on SqueakMap for awhile now.  We could 
> discuss a bit more, but let's decide on a strategy in the next day or 
> two.

Ok, my clear vote is to actually add all 10 right now. I mean, again -
we are in alpha land and IMHO alphaland is allowed to hurt. It's the
whole point. All other variants just seem to be too much complicated
work that takes too much time.

If someone could just verify that the packages at least "seem" to come
back in when reinstalled then I think that is enough to give it a green
light. All agree?

Also please review the loadscript since it does install a few other
things during the process.

> (I guess the Test packages are not yet available for each package 
> addition, which is another issue.  We should probably make it a 
> requirement that "Squeak Official" packages must have a matching Test 
> package, even if it's just a simple test, along the lines of what 
> Marcus suggested in that April 15th message.  Also, we could declare 
> Marcus to be the "testing" Volunteer, so perhaps he would be 
> responsible/empowered to bug the package owners to add the appropriate 
> Test packages, and provide guidance when needed...? :-) )

I agree on the idea to have a matching Test package for the official
ones.

 
> - Doug Way

regards, Göran