[squeak-dev] Re: SqueakMap soon working in 4.0/4.1!
Göran Krampe
goran at krampe.se
Sun Apr 11 14:16:38 UTC 2010
Hi!
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> There is one fundamental problem with both the SqueakMap and Universes model
> that has not been mentioned yet: It does not encourage participation.
For a
> package author, maintaining a package entry is just an additional burden.
> And a package user cannot really do much about a broken package entry.
>
> Contrast that with the Trunk Model: One reason it works is that it takes
> almost zero effort to participate. You publish a fix to the inbox and
announce
> that on squeak-dev. And it's very simple for a core developer to take
it and
> commit to the trunk.
>
> IMHO we need something similarly simple for a package management system for
> Squeak. Something where it is easy to share. If one user figures out
how to get
> a particular package to load, it must be trivial to share that method.
> And submitting one such "package loading instruction" must not sign
up the user
> to be perpetual maintainer of the package.
>
> So I think the private "ownership" model is flawed. We need a package management
> system that allows easy contribution. Maybe SqueakMap can be
restructured for this,
> but currently it seems heavily geared towards single maintainers.
Without going into this in depth there are some things worth mentioning:
- Co-maintainers. Although there is always one owner of a package on SM,
there can be multiple co-maintainers. And today they can do the same
things, except change ownership and co-maintainers IIRC. I agree, not a
medicin here, but worth mentioning.
- Unofficial releases. This was something I toyed with, but never got
done. The idea is of course that anyone can make a release of a given
package - but it will marked as a non-official release.
- The new SM model that I have in my head. :) It builds on the
realization that *almost* everything on SqueakMap is held inside a
personal account - in other words "information about code and packages
etc that I want to share with other people". So that would be a very
nice "partitioning boundary" for a distributed model.
BUT... I agree with you Bert. :)
regards, Göran
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|