A roadmap for 3.9

Tim Rowledge tim at sumeru.stanford.edu
Sun Dec 12 20:42:49 UTC 2004


stéphane ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:

> > Last, but not least: I don't think monticello based on the current 
> > philosophy of package info is ready for prime time yet. As long as I 
> > can't package a single class or method easily I'm not willing to 
> > accept this as the default packaging system. And I sincerely hope that 
> > none of you considers writing a package info class to package a single 
> > method as a feasible approach.
> 
> so in that case we should not have package in the base image. I think 
> that everybody talked a lot recently but few
> people really tried to do the work of marcus.
This tends to come down to a discussion about what should be the base
image purpose. We did have long discussions about this a few years ago
and IIRC concluded that the base image was to be a sensible iamge for
developing in and the full image was to have all that plus a lot of
interesting stuff to make it a suitable one-stop fetch for newcomers to
see what is possible. There was also a hoped-for image oneday with as
little in as possible to make a good base for loading applications as a
deployment system.

Although I'd agree there is more to be done on MC, I think it is the
basis of a good tool that ought to be us much used as changesets and
the changeset browsers. As an important programmer tool I think it
would be a smart thing to have in the developer image.

There is a reasonable point to be made that perhaps the developer image
should be built from a slimmed back down base image in much the same
way as the full image. _IF_ we can make it easy to keep everything
updated properly when it's done that way.

tim
--
Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Strange OpCodes: PS: Pirate Software



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list