Squeak 3.8 status
karl.ramberg at chello.se
Tue Aug 3 15:19:44 UTC 2004
lex at cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> > There is always room for improvments. But some decitions have to be made.
> > Should we split the image into packages? When is this going to happen ?
> > How is packages maintained? Who maintain them ?
> Should we split? Yes when easy, no when hard.
> When? How about now?
Adam Spitz made some image splitting code a while ago.
Let's hope that goes into 3.8.
> One way to look at my suggestion is that I am wanting us to route
> communication towards the people who can actually do something
> meaningful. There is a wealth of discussion we can have on the details,
> but the first steps are that we have the technology for the routing, and
> that we have at least *one* person serving as the point of contact for
> each package.
> Once we have that in place, we can discuss things like:
> - Maybe the kernel should continue to be committee-maintained
I think so.
> - We need away to do non-maintainer-updates, if the official
> maintainers disappears from the planet for a while
> - We eventually will want a way to forcibly oust a maintainer who has
> disappeared. It's an ugly scenario but it will happen and we might want
> to be prepared.
> - What do we do with packages no one feels real qualified about? What
> is our process for easing unmaintained parts of Squeak out of the main
> But these are minor details compared to the main one. Let's not just
> divide, but divide and specialize.
Let's make things happen
More information about the Squeak-dev