Bert Freudenberg <bert at impara.de> wrote on 08.04.2004 22:12:22:

>>> So the question: The Full 3.7 has to cover users AND developers?
>>
>> Of course Full has to include both, because Full is defined as what 
>> is 
>
>Well, the definition I remembered is a bit different 
>(http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3412).
>
>> integrated and working together best, what is tested as a whole
>> entity, what is expected to be maintained, what resembles the old
>> monolithic world of Squeak. Otherwise Full would make no sense.

The original idea of Full is what I described. People just keep on 
misinterpreting it. The reason for something being there like Full is 
that a borderline for differentiating packages integrated to a whole 
from other packages is useful. 

Look at KDE or Debian, they adopted a similar model, despite the fact 
that they had to "invent" this coming from the absolute opposite, from 
isolated programs. 

And yes, I am a volunteer for testing Full, just because I am using 
Full, instead of using part of it, which obviously would make finding 
problems in the "full" part of Full impossible. 

Regards,
Martin