About squeak image compatibility (3.6/7/8)

Samir Saidani saidani at squeakfr.org
Sun Jan 8 20:50:28 UTC 2006

stéphane ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> writes:

> So what can I do?
> If you take the latest 3.9 version 6707, and publish the mcz files in  
> the inbox and scripts I will include them
> after review. You can also send them to me by email.

Stéphane, really this question of reviewing sounds sometimes for me as
a friction into the energy we are deploying for squeak : why don't we
start from reponsability instead of mistrust ? I don't say that
reviewing is bad, feedback are important as an educational process to
understand what you miss, but Edgar has done some work, why don't let
him to include himself ? Another example is that I proposed to include
on the squeak core a little enhancement 5 years ago and it was never
done because X wants to review Y who wants to control Z. Giving
responsability is a different kind of organization : ok Z, let's
include it, but be really careful, don't hesitate to ask us, and
nevertheless we have designed things to step back if there is a
problem. Notice that this is also an educational process, because we
give the possibility to make errors and to step back.

But in squeak, stepping back seems to be a very difficult task, and I
think that a lot of problems come from the fact that squeak is not
"reversible", implying that each step must be carefully done (and so
leads to endless control and painful reviewing). The question is : Is
it possible to get a "reversible" squeak in order to put
responsability in the center of the organization, and not the
reviewing ?

"Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene" <edgardec2001 at yahoo.com.ar> writes:

> Cees De Groot puso en su mail :
>> However, the unloaded
>> packages *must* be adopted by someone who will keep them in sync with
>> 3.9a development so we can build up a Full image when wanted, and as
>> long as that isn't in place it would be unwise to just drop these
>> packages...
> So , who is in charge of Alice ?
> And the all Games ?
> And MorphicWrappers ?
> And many , many orphans ? (today I answer to how load StarBrowser)
> I wish a Cheetah, not a Dinosaur. And if you wish a "tortilla", should break
> some eggs....=:)

If we unload the package, we would like that a maintainer exists and
that he dedicates some work to make the same code working with
different images. There is another way that I'm trying to stress here
in this thread : the squeak core workers dedicating some work to make
the same code working with different images. I really think that it is
the responsability of people changing something to take care that
their changes do not hurt external code, and if does, to to minimize
the damage as much as possible. Same applied to coders working on
library packages. Presently, squeak core workers says : "Ok, we are
changing the core, it's up to you package maintainers to work to
maintain your code, we don't care". Sorry, but I fundamentally


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list