>> And Edgars work on Minimal is made obsolete.

> Not

It is obsolete if you don't succeed in loading closures into it.

> All I do sooner or later go to people who knows better.

Exactly what I said, you have a NEED for "Minimal" to not be made  
obsolete, so you have a NEED to repeat the work of the guru's or  
solicit their help.

Wouldn't it be nice if they anticipated your NEED, since it was their  
need once, and it is also my NEED.

To anticipate your need, all they need to do is publish the work  
relative to a fixed point that is known, rather than integrating it as  
they go along in to a moving target. The fundamental problem is not  
the progress it is the moving target.

> And remember 3.10 was the first image with Monticello packages going  
> out...
>
> I have Etoys reload/load a long time ago, but no perfect.

Here we have the same problem in the backwards direction. You had a go  
at unloading etoys, but managed an imperfect job. Well done for having  
the guts to try it.

So if you were to publish your imperfect effort as a delta against a  
known fixed point 3.10 release.
Then the gurus, knowing you had a need, could contribute to your  
effort, and publish it as a final delta against the 3.10 release.

However what happens is, the gurus are off working relative to their  
moving target, we will call it "trunk" for the sake of argument, so  
they don't see your hard work as relevant to them, after all they are  
a guru so they know better. They easily redo your work in a day, that  
took you weeks, but then they publish it to their moving target.

The net result, your hard work is ignored, and you are left scavenging  
through their repository in the hope you can learn what you did wrong,  
and apply it to your moving target.

> Now I have the "class repository" idea and this also some clever guy  
> polish
> some day and we have a more granular system.

Actually Edgar, I think you may have been ahead of your time on this  
one.

Given that Cuis doesn't have Monticello I have been having similar  
ideas myself.

> All ideas take time and talent.

Sure... the problem being that those who develop applications like me  
have their time and limited talent tied up in hefty loaded images,  
with the client screaming to just make the damn thing work.

Those who are sprinting ahead with the time and the talent to make a  
better kernel, are simply not in the same world.

LevelPlayingField (and 3.10-build) was invented as a place to put  
patches that could smooth out the difference, between what the kernel  
developers give us, and what we application developers actually need.

> No need I do perfect things, but yes things some saw and discover  
> how to
> have working.
> That's team work, a concept you don't have.

I have always strongly objected to this repeated accusation. I have  
continuously been interested in having your input, but you would never  
give it, you absolutely refused. You just said "he uses scripts in a  
website" that dont have a password (when I don't) and turned your back  
on the idea of joining in.

Secondly I was continuously interested in contributing to 3.10, I  
wrote TestReporter a non GUI test runner for SUnit , as a contribution  
to 3.10. Ralph ignored my contribution and wrote his own 3 months  
later. Which one is the team player?

I wrote Installer as a contribution to 3.10, which you included, but  
you included an old version... again I write stuff to be included, I  
get it included, but someone decides not to make sure that the best  
version is published in the final release. Again who is the team  
player here, and who is not?

I provided a framework within which you could publish the script for  
building FunSqueak. I asked you to put funsqueak into Sake/Packages so  
we could see what it contained and build and test 3.11 against  
FunSqueak. Damien did it for the "developer" image, and he isnt even a  
regular squeak user.

> Pavel start Minimal before 3.10 start, I was helping when Ralph  
> choose me.
>
> So same I finish 3.10 as I could, also now follow Minimal with my  
> crazy
> ideas.

Until you do manage to load Closures into Minimal it is obsolete, and  
all that time and energy you put in to it has been wasted.

Until I manage to load closures into my working image, all the time  
and energy I put into it, has been wasted.
Or until I can load my working image into 3.11 (which I have to wait a  
long while for), my effort is wasted.

It appears to be that a lot of effort gets wasted around here.

> That's the good side of the forks.
>
> But at some time is best work in the main with as many guys is  
> possible.
>
> This is the trunk today.

It was mantis yesterday.

Only Mantis is more useful for me NOW.

> Bury ego!!!

Sure, I am all in favour of that. So please...

You don't need to run for the board. Campaign instead for the board  
not to favour certain "egos" and to have a civilised protocol where  
discussion and collaboration is actually possible.

> All was necessary and all ideas should be listen without pre concepts.

"trunk" is a pre-concept we are stuck with now, it was created without  
listening or understanding that we had already decided that this very  
way of working was what had caused previous problems in the past.

1. Long release turnarounds, because trying to do too much at once.
2. No small scale branching, thus provoking full scale forking.
3. Repeatedly large chunks of the community get left behind (etoys  
3.8, Sophie 3.8, cobalt 3.8)

Gjallar is the only large project that I know of which hasn't been  
left behind, and the solution for that was Installer and LPF.

regards

Keith









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100124/e6bc52c3/attachment.htm