On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, keith wrote:

>> 
>> We can do that anytime, can't we? I think it's not urgent to have a kernel 
>> image. If we get there in 6 months or a year, it doesn't really matter to 
>> me.
>
> That is not what the community has been saying for the past 5 years.

I'm not the community, just a member, my opinion may differ.

>
> Having a kernel image is essential if the forking problem is to be turned 
> into an opportunity, rather than a pain.

I don't think anyone would like to make new forks in the near future 
(except for Jecel). It's easier to cooperate than to do everything 
on your own.

>
> As I have always said, anyone can hack at a monolithic image, that is not 
> news. In fact that is the approach that got is into this mess in the first 
> place. If the community wants to go in a specific direction then you have to 
> plan for it, think about it and actually work on the tools you need to 
> achieve it.
>
> Developing tools for 12 months, forgetting all of your goals, and going back 
> to where you started, and then saying that you don't care if you never get to 
> where you wanted to go, is not progress in my book.

"The goals

The goal of this process is to get rid of as many hurdles as possible in 
the contribution process. We are trying to enable the community at large 
to improve Squeak, the core of the system and its supporting libraries."

I think we are doing it pretty well.


Levente

>
> Keith
>
>