Is it reasonable to ask that LookEnhancements are not merged into the 
image but remain optional. This should be achievable in the packetized 
image?
The reasoning is as follows. The aesthetic quality of an enhancement is 
in the eye of the beholder. I happen to be an admirer of Tufte's work 
and I strive for a sober and subdued look except for the important items 
and a look in which each item has to say something or not take up 
pixels. Other people may prefer a Heavy Metal look or whatever is 
currently fashionable in movie houses.
It would be counterproductive if all these people had to remove 
laboriously some look enhancement to be able to apply their own poison 
;) This fits with a base image that does just enough but no more.

Marcus Denker wrote:
> 
> Am 27.08.2005 um 10:05 schrieb stéphane ducasse:
> 
>> Hi andreas
>>
>> Thanks for proposing your help.
>>
>> at esug with ported all the packages to 3.9alpha, checking all the  
>> conflicts. There was nothing serious.
>> Now apparently this is just an order in the configuration files  that 
>> messed up something. I do not know exactly what since
>> marcus did it. So for now it does not seem a big problem just a  pure 
>> lack of time... (papers, lectures, new job :)).
>>
> 
> Yes, no problem with ToolBuilder. The alternate syntax cleanup needed  
> some shuffling of the load-order to load. This now
> seems to work, but the resulting update 6681 strangely did not update  
> three packages, so I want to re-build it and test it
> a bit before making it available. And now source.squeakfoundation.org  
> is down...
> 
>> Once the toolbuilder is in 3.9a I guess that we will call for help  to 
>> migrate code to the *Plus (for the unfamiliar widget rewrite
>> that use ToolBuilder framework) classes because some of the classes  
>> wtih Plus have less functionality and we could get rid of
>> having double class ie inspector inspectorPlus.
>>
> 
> The next steps will be:
> 
>  -> puplish 6681
>  -> Merge ToolBuilder (just 24 conflicting method for both  changesets, 
> no problem to do)
>  -> pushlish as 6682
>  -> Merge LookEnhancemetns
>  -> pushlish as 6683
> 
> After that, the MorphicSplitters team hat the ball to merge in their  
> work, and I'd like to have
> the toolrefactoring in, too.
> 
> 
>        Marcus
>