stéphane ducasse wrote:
> No problem we are the bad guys to blame....
> 
> Stef (the random refactorer)

Honestly, Stef, if it isn't random then what is the strategy for these 
changes? Looking at the past Squeak versions, starting from 3.6 every 
version was just incompatible enough with previous versions such that it 
would break any serious user of the metaclass hierarchy (like Tweak). I 
think you will agree that it can't continue that way, that at some point 
we need to get back to what can be called a *stable* metaclass kernel 
with reliable APIs and when exactly will that point be reached?

Cheers,
   - Andreas


> 
>> Lex Spoon wrote:
>>> Hilaire is only asking what the status and expectations about a usable
>>> Tweak are.  It took a lot of asking, and apparently the answer is that
>>> you have to go back and convert a 3.8 image to a Tweak one.  This is
>>> different from Morphic, where Morphic was initially available in
>>> Squeak right beside MVC.
>>
>> But what is your point, exactly? That Tweak is to blame for changes in 
>> 3.9 that render 3.9 incompatible with 3.8 to such an extent that Tweak 
>> doesn't work out of the box? Contrary to which other 3.8 based 
>> environments (iSqueak, Croquet, TinLizzie) run Tweak just fine.
>>
>> And for the records, the reason why Morphic was initially available in 
>> Squeak right beside MVC was because the people who worked on it (SqC) 
>> had control over BOTH. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about 
>> Tweak and 3.9 so unless your point is that you're screwed when you 
>> don't have control over parts that you depend on (to which I 
>> wholeheartedly agree), then I don't get the point you're trying to make.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>>
> 
> 
>