On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> My sense is that Squeak cares about it's legacy software, wants to go
> smaller in a way that keeps most of those "paleolithic" things
> loadable.  The easiest way to do that, we feel, is to massage it while
> it's still in the image, make it unloadable, reloadable, THEN unload
> it, save the smaller image and deploy that as "core".
>
Thank you for saying this, Chris.  I've wanted to write this a few
times, but wasn't sure how to state it.  This is the thing that I like
most about the current Trunk process - being able to make changes and
have the person making the change see several of the places that the
change will impact.  This then allows them to either alter the change
(if it breaks too many things) or go ahead and fix the other 'modules'
that it impacts.  (Such as several of N.C.'s commit storms - fixing
all of the impacted packages when he it fixing bug in the code.)

Just wish I had more time to contribute to the process.

-ChrisC