On Wednesday 22 December 2004 7:43 am, Michael Latta wrote:
> I have noticed quite a number of messages relating to EToys of the form
> "Get the SqueakLand stuff"  or "Use the SqueakLand image", or "The
> fixes are in the SqueakLand image".  So I have several questions:

These have mostly been from people using the 3.7 Squeak.org image.

> 1) If EToys is only being maintained in the SqueakLand image should it
> remain in Squeak?  If the version in Squeak does not work that well and
> is not being maintained should it remain here?

We have taken the recent Squeakland changes and have rolled them back into the 
3.8 stream.

> 2) How divergent are the two images?

Very similar at this point (3.8 vs. Squeakland). We have taken up through CS 
0368 from the Squeakland work and brought it over to the 3.8 stream.

> 3) I assume there are pieces of EToys that are very deep in the system,
> and it has some pretty cool aspects, but is the version in Squeak
> calcifying for lack of attention?

They're not different (see above).

> 4) Can we encourage the SqueakLand group to use packages so we can
> share work more easily?
> 5) Have the SqueakLand people made radically different choices in their
> image?

No.

> I would hate to see Squeak become the attic of old ideas.

It is already somewhat that way, and could stand some cleaning. However, Etoys 
at least is being maintained.

> If things do 
> not work well in this environment they should be packaged up and
> removed.  At the same time I would not want to have to use image A for
> one feature and image B for another, so the better solution would be to
> find some way to keep the features working in both places.  But, I know
> how hard it is to support the same code in multiple lines of
> development, and for volunteers to do that is almost too much to ask.

Michael Rueger has been trying to keep the 3.8 and Squeakland images in sync. 
Thanks Michael!

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com/squeak/