2010/1/21 keith <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk>:
> With all respect Keith, sometimes seems that you hates all the rest of
> the world, angry
> with the Board, angry with Andreas, angry with the people not using
> your projects.....maybe
> you should change something also.
>
> Cheers.
> Germán.
>
> I don't doubt it, and never have for a second. I don't give excuses for my
> behaviour.
> You have all been very helpful to me, many healing experiences have poured
> from these recent events. However I am not fully healed yet and comments
> like this following one don't help.
> From the board's report:
> "One of the issues regarding the release of Trunk development work is how to
> release an image that has had many packages removed and yet make those
> removals easily and obviously available for reinstallation to users who are
> new to Squeak. Andreas brought this issue up on the squeak-dev mailing in
> hopes that someone would become interested and come up with a solution"
> Do you have any idea how insulting is this?
> Do you have any idea how insulting is this?
> Do you have any idea how insulting is this?
> Do you have any idea how insulting is this?
> We did this 2 years ago.
> When this need was the starting point of the old 3.11 process, "That moving
> towards a kernel image as a goal needs tools to manage the removal and
> subsequent intallation of packages, and that an image with the ability to
> unload optional packages, is functionally equivalent to an image in which
> you can load optional packages", off the tools are there. The fact that
> Andreas hasn't thought about this before, simply points towards the idiocy
> of the lets hack the image for the sake of it approach. The board already
> recognised that this approach was not getting us anywhere when they approved
> my proposal, and the pharo team were proving it.
> Not only that ALL the work is finished, and has been in use for more than 18
> months. Installer was originally developed for this purpose in 2006, and
> subsequently Sake/Packages includes dependencies, and version control of
> package definitions. Again its not perfect, but the point remains, the
> "community" clamoured for a solution, and we developed it for the community,
> not for ourselves.

Once you stop taking this as an insult, or personal attack, and
instead ask Andreas
why he thinks that none of available solutions is viable for us, and
then disscuss it in detail and
come to the potential solution, we'll not move ahead.
But you seems prefer walking in circles.


> So... "someone who would become interested", I spent 3 years being
> interested on YOUR BEHALF, not even for my benefit, Installer scripts worked
> fine for me, I only build an image once a year or so, hand crafting it is
> just as productive, especially sine out of order loading feature of MC,
> means that dependencies are not that important.


> So "someone who would become interested" ... you can shove it where the sun
> don't shine, and I will let you know when I eventually get healed.

I'll be waiting for this moment.

> regards
> Keith
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.