Jason Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Keith Hodges <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>   
>>  I believe that Sake/Packages is better
>> than Universes in many ways, but then I am totally biased since I wrote it.
>>
>> The significant difference between sake/packages and universes is that the
>> former is open to all, whereas universes can be updated only by package
>> maintainers. This means that sake/packages is likely to be more agile, and
>> up to date.
>>     
>
> I wouldn't call this "better", I would call it different.  Universes,
> as far as I understand, are about stability. 
I was stating my belief based upon spending almost a week attempting to 
use Universes to put together a complex image for production, it really 
doesn't live up to those expectations.

The question here is whether stability can best be acheived through a 
signoff process, or by allowing a multitude of testers to feedback their 
results as quickly as possible.

In the case of debian, there is no way you can expect an average user to 
feedback changes, running test suites etc. Each package is too 
specialist. Squeak on the other hand is much simpler and many people 
have the wherewithall to do so.
>  I.e. someone has to
> "sign off" that packages work together before they get included
 ...snipped...
> You stuff would be preferred in a setting where the user is more
> "hands on" and always wants the latest even if it causes a crash now
> and then (stated another way:  production vs. development).
>   
Not at all. I began with a requirement to build a production image, and 
Universes doesnt allow you to do that. If one piece is out of place you 
have to abandon universes and do it manually.

Either way you could argue that the majority of squeak users are in 
development at some level anyway.

best regards

Keith