At 3:43 PM -0500 12/14/10, Chris Cunnington apparently wrote:
>"Lets accept it. For good or bad, monticello packages are the way to go,
>
>and gofer desing is around this observation."
>
>Your position is too extreme. I argued against SqueakMap about as hard as anybody can six, seven months ago.
>I got serious push back. Gofer is great and there are lots of reasons to use it. But I don't see any reason to
>break things, or decide for people who want to do things in an older mode.
>
>"Better, add to Installer that which Gofer does that Installer doesn't."
>
>This doesn't seem like a great idea. As somebody pointed out, it has no active maintainer.

I think this is a bogus argument. If that line of reasoning were followed, then one could easily say Monticello has no active maintainer. Otherwise why was all the work done to pull all the previous forks of Monticello together, and improve it for the future with v 1.5/1.6 thrown away, with trunk using some ancient version, and Pharo ditto.
As far as i know, Installer repo on Squeaksource is available for people to post to in the open source way of doing things.

> Lukas maintains Gofer
>and there are reasons to use it: closer relationship with Pharo, contemporary MC integration (Metacello).

I can accept using Gofer in trunk, for things that require it like reading it's own scripts.
But I don't want to see Installer go away... because of all the things Installer does that Gofer doesn't.

Ken G. Brown

>
>Chris