Integration of OCompletion would not need to be done as a fork. It could
mean to have it preloaded in a trunk image and maintain that future versions
still work.

I don't think that having something like OCompletion per default in trunk
will be like having "all bells and whistles". It's something basic like ...
well ... shout, which we have forked into trunk.

In general I don't think trunk means to keep it archaic and to blister
yourself in using it.

Alex
2010/12/5 Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at angband.za.org>

> On 2010/12/05 21:38, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Tim Felgentreff wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Since Squeak presents itself to the newcomer as an integrated development
>>> environment, it should act that way, too, imho. Having a good one-click,
>>> out-of-the-box experience is crucial if we want new people to come and
>>> stick to Squeak
>>>
>>>
>> +1.  For attracting new Squeakers, I agree that it's crucial to have all
>> the
>> dev tools expected by the market.  Leave the tweaking to the experts e.g.
>> "Bare-bones the system" instead of "extend the system" for bread and
>> butter
>> IDE features.
>>
>>
>> Tim Felgentreff wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> otherwise they'll simply go on and use Pharo.
>>>
>>>  Or drop Smalltalk altogether!  Until a year ago, I thought Smalltalk was
>> a
>> strange dead language.  Lacking features that are basic in other
>> environments will not combat this impression.
>>
>
> Yes, but that's a distribution problem. Have a one-click with all the vital
> bells and whistles, great. That's not trunk though.
>
> So OCompletion should stay out of trunk _because_ it's nicely packaged, and
> when we say "OK kids, Squeak 4.2's here" we also say "...and here's the
> one-click with some nice extra add-ons you can't do without"
>
> frank
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20101205/433ee5c5/attachment.htm