Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>> So, we should
>> Use old beloved sftp://updates@ftp.squeak.org/home/updates/
>> Put here some .cs for start the Trunk process
>> I send some a few days ago.
>> I beg you review, approve or change to your will
>> Put the .cs in the folder
>> When process  try to load Closures, this should be the end of 3.10.2 and the
>> start of 3.11
>> Here should be 
>> nnnnAdvanceToThreeDotTenAlpha

I still don't understand what you're proposing here. Are you saying that 
you want to add to the update stream for 3.10.2? Then people load up to 
the closure bootstrap and that's the end of the life time of 3.10?

> By the way, like my image?
> I volunteer to do this each time (monthly maybe ?) and start to add packages
> which behave nicely, to Squeaker request.

I like it but we should have a community understanding what we'd like to 
see in the "standard" image. It may be similar to FunSqueak but it would 
be good if we'd have some discussions about the things we'd like to see 
in it.

> Image should going smaller and modular, we agree on this

Yes.

> It's valuable to community we some day have a consensual "Core", "Minimal",
> "kernel" image.
> Also each newbie should have a image as big as we could build without too
> much glue.

I agree. What I'd like to see is a core image that strictly gets smaller 
and that really nobody uses to work in, only to verify that it's 
self-consistent and can be used to boostrap larger images. That image 
would not include anything that we can possibly remove without loosing 
the ability to build up from it.

 From this image we build up the "default" image that most of us work 
in. Hopefully, this can be done by a simple automated process like Mason 
or similar so that we have a way of mechanically recreating that image 
from first principles if we need to.

On top of this, there should be a nice and easily usable package 
management system that people can use to load whatever they want.

Cheers,
   - Andreas