Hi Stef,

Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
> My point of view:
>
> Pharo people weren't happy with the way Squeak was developed, so they 
> started their own project and now its development goes well: good for 
> them. It seems like a lot of people are actually interested and 
> working in Pharo; again: good for them.
>
> Now I do like Squeak better, so I stayed here (beside, it would be a 
> hell of a work to port my code to Pharo, with all the "cleaning up" 
> that happened there). Why should I even consider letting Squeak die, 
> or merging it into Pharo ? Of course cross-pollination between the two 
> project is something worth reaching for, but I can't see how Squeak 
> doing harakiri is an adequate response to this challenge.

Ok. So the Squeak objective for you might be something like: "Evolve 
mildly the current Squeak functionality. Fix bugs. Keep APIs 
compatibility.". I'm ok with such mission. It would mean that Pharo and 
Squeak should not merge. It also means Cuis and Squeak should not merge. 
The problem is not having it clearly stated.

> Squeak development slowed down quite a bit. So what ? That's something 
> we can discuss here in squeak-dev. No urge to surrender to Pharo IMHO.
>
>
> Stef

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich