agree.

On 12 sept. 04, at 22:11, danielv at techunix.technion.ac.il wrote:

> I think that we should also include Monticello as a package in 3.8/3.9.
> I see two reasons to do this, one short term one long term.
> 1. That way users of Squeak package that are maintained using MC don't
> have extra barriers to becoming contributors. The immidiate possibility
> of being active is IMO an important value in Smalltalk.
> 2. It is key to our attempts to improve the modularity situation. TFNR
> partitioning of the image is only useful if the tools are there to
> actually manage changes to the system along package boundaries. With 
> the
> current tools in the image, they are essentially inert. MC is not ready
> yet to be used for managing all of Squeak as a bunch of packages, but
> from some testing I've done during CampSmalltalk, it isn't that far
> away. Giving it more visibility and more usage will help get it there
> faster, and we should also start getting more familiarity in the
> community with this way of working.
>
> We should start the integration of the tool early, even if its not
> perfect and completely ready, so we can co-adapt to it over time.
>
> Note that its mere inclusion doesn't force any changes in the way 
> people
> do anything.
>
> Daniel Vainsencher
>
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> for 3.9 we (marcus and me at least) would like to see the following
>> tools integrated into the image:
>> 	- RB engine
>> 	- services
>> 	- shout
>> 	- OmniBrowser
>>
>> Now what is important is to identify the changes that are done over 
>> 3.7
>> basic and minimise then by:
>> 	- checking if they are really worth
>> 	- analysing the extensions or patches and introducing them separately
>> into the basic image.
>> 	If there are missing hooks then they should be separated and 
>> harvested
>> into the basic image
>> 	so that other tools can use them.
>>
>> So what I would like to know if the interested parties are ok with 
>> this
>> plan?
>>
>> Stef
>