[ANN] 3.9a from 6696 -> 6702
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sat Nov 5 20:08:51 UTC 2005
stéphane ducasse wrote:
> You should have said that before we spent a week evenings and some days
> on that.
> In addition as it was not easy to load it, nobody would have got a look
> at it and after this would have been lost.
> As Cees spent energy and requested reviews (and you did not say
> anything) then we did it.
> So we can throw it away but this would be stupid now.
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. There are two parts
here: One is the set of changes that make the tools actually unloadable,
and that part is absolutely welcome and worthwhile. These are what I
call the PlusTools "patches" and is really the majority of stuff we're
talking about.
The second part is the actual PlusTools "package". That one I'm not too
happy about (at least right now) because unless we remove the standard
tool set it seems quite pointless to have two sets of tools in a "basic"
image. However, PlusTools are simply not at the point where they could
replace the standard tools so it would be better if those people who
have an interested in it load PlusTools if they want to.
> We can also let people fix it slowly and use the standardToolSet.
Again, I just don't think that a half-finished package belongs into a
"basic" image, no matter what reason.
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|