On 2/18/07, Edgar J. De Cleene <edgardec2001 at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
>
>
>
> El 2/18/07 5:17 PM, "Pavel Krivanek" <squeak1 at continentalbrno.cz> escribió:
>
> > I think that the priority is to detach and sort tests from the EToys
> > package and then avoid overrides in MinimalMorphic and EToys. Then it
> > will be much easier to continue in safe packaging process - do top
> > down packaging in terms of this big package. I really see no reason
> > why we should redefine MinimalMorphic (I hope that I've understood you
> > well)
>
> It's a question of what is a package and what is safe at this time.
> You have a killer in your procedure, I was a long fan of your work.
> I don't wish change MinimalMorphic.
> Only I saying what if you agree on made several parts of your EToys-pk.4.mcz
> and maybe some changes to EToysLoader-pk.8.mcz for having a image derived
> from 3.9 and have your kernel as target for 3.11.

It's still hard to understand you, sorry. Do you mean derived image
that will have lot of own code and improvements?

> Maybe I should made a new "tentative" 3.10 tomorrow and put somewhere so you
> and all guys here could see and agree , disagree or propose changes.

That would be great.

-- Pavel