Some thoughts 2/3: Preparing 3.9

danielv at tx.technion.ac.il danielv at tx.technion.ac.il
Wed Sep 15 09:20:05 UTC 2004


[including MC in the image]
Bert Freudenberg <bert at impara.de> wrote:
> I assume you're speaking about the full image, right? We agreed earlier 
> on that no packaging system should go into the base image, but only the 
> infrastructure necessary to build one, in particular PackageInfo. I 
> agree it should make it into the full image which has all sorts of 
> developer tools.

I believe that in the current situation, MC should be in Basic. In
short, the reason is that Basic should include  exactly the set of tools
that are needed to improve Basic
(http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3413). Do we agree on this?

If so, the consider that IMO we are nearing a point at which many
maintainers of Squeak stuff,  including Basic, will have the MC be as 
much a part of their development process as, say, the MessageNames
 tool, and much more so than, say, the hierarchy browser. 

Further than that, it is a tool that could both accelerate the rate of
change of Squeak and allow quite separate development groups to share
code more easily. I think that's becoming more and more important - for
example, it might make it reasonable for Squeak to integrate Squeakland
changes (and vice versa?) immediately, instead of waiting for a
slowdown, simply because it lowers the costs of conflict detection. 

Also, there's the matter of integrating MC with the update stream, for
which Avi explained some specific options. I consider this a medium-term
goal (say a year). But the immediate benefits to including MC are not 
dependant on the timing or concensus on that goal.

What do you think?

Daniel Vainsencher



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list