Cees De Groot writes:
 > On 5/19/06, st,Ai(Bphane ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
 > > I would dream to remove a lot of old code, but was always afraid to
 > > break too much stuff.
 > >
 > That's a valid fourth option, of course.

A fifth option would be to move in smaller steps with a higher quality
level. If all tests were always passing then it would be easier to
assess changes and there would be a greater incentive to write tests.

Having a higher quality bar would make it more difficult to make
large changes like internationalisation and Traits but might free
up some energy to work on the process and the tool support.

My personal suspicion is a few small tool enhancements including
a dependency mechanism for SqueakMap would provide a large benefit.
It's possible that the process tried for 3.9 can be made to work with
some investment in tools. I'm slightly afraid that we'll forever chase
a perfect process and fail to get any process working well.

However, any serious plan for 3.10 or 4.0 whichever one is next would
need a few people to volunteer to lead the effort. As always, it's
those who do the work who get to decide what gets done. Discussion is
valuable but not decisive.

Bryce
P.S. I'm away from the internet for the next week on holiday.