here is a plan! (was: Smalltalk Reloaded)
Jecel Assumpcao Jr
jecel at merlintec.com
Mon Oct 30 20:46:56 UTC 2006
Klaus D. Witzel wrote on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:58:57 +0100
> > This is a plan that is practical and which I fully support: if we can
> > unload eToys but not load it back, then let's just include eToys in the
> > full image that we distribute and allow everyone the one way option of
> > removing it.
> Let me try and reformulate your plan with two set operators (- "minus" and
> + "plus")
> Squeak - "Pavel's" (Etoys + Morphic)
> + "Juan's" Morphic
> = (Squeak - Etoys)
> If there'd be strong support for Pavel *and* for Juan then dreams would
> come true.
This is a different plan. In fact, in many ways it is the opposite of
Guy's plan I was endorsing.
Juan Vuletich wrote on Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:11:45 -0300 (ART):
> What I propose can be done. I did it for 3.7. You can download it from
> http://www.jvuletich.org/Squeak/EToysFreeMorphic/EtoysFreeMorphic.html . I
> believe Pavel did something similar (although I haven't looked at it.
So to express the plan I am talking about in your notation:
Squeak3.10 - Juan's 3.7 work updated for 3.10 = Squeak3.10 - EToys
The difference is that this would be an operation that could be
automated, so that we could distribute "Squeak 3.10 Full" and each
interested person could call up a menu option and generate the EToyless
image as needed. I am supposing that the plan you described would be a
one time thing (since the Morphic being removed and the Morphic being
added back are not the same) . It might be a bit subtle, since I am
perfectly ok with having a "Squeak 3.10 Basic" image that doesn't
include EToys. What I don't want to see happen is a version with no
EToys options at all.
More information about the Squeak-dev