Some thoughts 2/3: Preparing 3.9
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Thu Sep 16 04:48:32 UTC 2004
why changeset and friends are not as a package right now. So MC could
be a good substitute
On 15 sept. 04, at 08:24, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> Hi guys!
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>> Hi bert
>>>>> I think that we should also include Monticello as a package in
>>>>> I see two reasons to do this, one short term one long term.
>>>> We actually discussed this a bit earlier (although no one summarized
>>>> the reasons as well as you did here) and generally agreed that
>>>> Monticello should go in 3.8. It's actually in the plan for 3.8:
>>> I assume you're speaking about the full image, right? We agreed
>>> earlier on that no packaging system should go into the base image,
>>> 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.
> Well, I disagree. :) I think it should go into Basic. BUT.... *as a
> package*. This means that Minimal (or did we call it kernel? Gosh,
> remember) will start to get visible. Up to now most people have only
> been aware of Basic and Full. But if we think about this carefully we
> also have "Minimal" - that is - Basic minus the packages in it.
> IIRC Basic was meant as the "basic" environment for development. It
> should include the tools that are in general needed for development,
> all the tools that are "nice addons". Monticello has IMHO a long time
> ago passed from being a "nice addon" to now being the essential tool
> source code/package management in the Squeak community. And as such - I
> think it should be there from the start.
> But *as always* - we should add it *like a package* - just like SM for
> example. Which means it is maintained separately, can easily be
> yaddayadda. You guys all know the reasons - I don't need to repeat
> regards, Göran
More information about the Squeak-dev