I can see from the tone I've used that I've got people's backs up. One the
one hand I have no desire to create personal animosity. On the other hand
I'm glad some people are frothing mad, because this is in my mind a serious
problem. We are creating a new image and we're bringing an outdated design
attitude with us. We've been ruthless in cutting out some things and some
perspectives, but not here it seems.

"SqueakMap is a catalog, not a repository. And let's see - either it is
something you do not understand *or* I am actively with malicious intent
trying to make it harder for beginners.... hmmm, which one can it be..."

Yea, you're right I don't make this distinction, but that doesn't matter. If
I open up one menu I see three code getting options. For all intents and
purposes they are the same however they work.

"Deciding if the SqueakMap Package Loader should be *removed* from the
image is another thing - and that is not up to me."

This makes me totally insane. You're saying you're not responsible. Clearly
nobody is. This is one of the banes of open source projects: stuff is just
going to carry on into the future by inertia.

"No, I am not fixing it in order to feed a problem. I have no malicious
intent."

I know that. I know your personality and nothing is going to convince me you
have any malicious intent. Due to the tone I've been using this is the kind
of escalation that is a peril. Let's not go there.

"Now Lex is not AFAIK active anymore so
perhaps that path could easily be taken by the rest of us."

OK, how about this. How about we kill Universes and SqueakMap lives another
day.

Or, we can have all three, but not on the same menu. How about we prioritize
places to get code. SS and SM and UB are in the same image, but not the same
menu. Experts will know where to find what they are looking for.

Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100408/16474540/attachment.htm