Miguel,

Part of the reason the kitchen sink is still in Trunk is because we
need to replay all of those changes on the (MIT/Apache licensed)
Squeak 4.0 release, which isn't out yet. In fact, in a Trunk image you
can run [ Smalltalk unloadAllKnownPackages ] and get most of the way
toward a minimal base image (I mean, even the preferences browser is
gone.)

So while you're pointing fingers, may as well point at me first; as
the 4.0 release team, I'm the single biggest block to modularity until
I ship it:)

BTW, there's a release candidate for 4.0 now. We're getting there!

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Chris Cunningham
<cunningham.cb at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>



-- 
Casey a.k.a. Ron