On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 23:00 +0200, Lex Spoon wrote:
> Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com> writes:
> > If this is true, can I say "What is going on?".  This is not directed
> > specifically at you Damien; but is this community further splintering?
> > 
> > I'll be the first to admit that I'm nearly oblivious about the Universes
> > concept.  But it would disturb me to find that active development is
> > going on that is meant to be public but existing SqueakMap entries are
> > not being updated to reflect it.  If this is occurring, why?

Thanks for the detailed answers.

> Sometimes nobody does the work of putting the entry into the catalog.
> Sometimes the package author doesn't do it, and when that happens,
> AFAIK nobody is following behind them to update SqueakMap entries.
> 
> It is has always been like this, for both SqueakMap and Package
> Universes.  Catologing everything is a goal that can never be
> perfectly achieved.  Having multiple catalogs simply means it more
> obvious, because sometimes one or the other catalog is more current
> for some project.
> 
> If you want to see SqueakMap be more current, then someone has to do
> the work.  Here are some ideas about how that could be arranged:
> 
> 1. Have a catalog editor who mimicks my and Damien's role with the
>    package universes.  This person would peruse the database and
>    update entries that have fallen out of date.  This work takes a lot
>    of time, but on the nice side you get the gratification of perusing
>    a list of cool Squeak software that is out there.

I don't really understand this.  How is a catalog editor to determine
when a package being developed by some other party has reached a
publicly 'releasable' stage?  How, in general, is the catalog editor
expected to determine dependencies and details about installing the
package?  I'm not saying it's impossible to determine these things, but
it seems like the package owner is already going to know them and be in
a better position to make these judgements.  It almost sounds like you
are saying that package owners are reluctant to issue releases and you
have to do it for them.  Have I misunderstood?

Ken
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070528/ca2a9618/attachment.pgp