Chris Cunnington-3 wrote:
> 
> There are lots of packages on SqS that are in the same boat you describe.
> And those files are readily available. The won't work because Squeak has
> moved on.
> 

I would say they don't work because... they don't work ;-)  "Moved on" seems
too tidy a description for how the Squeak story occurs to me.  It's more of
a labyrinth than a linear timeline.  The fact that packages are not current
could reflect a whole lot of coincidental factors (e.g. owner had children)
rather than not being useful.  What I'm saying is building on Bert's
comments from "Re: SqueakMap soon working in 4.0/4.1!":

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> 
> There is one fundamental problem with both the SqueakMap and Universes
> model that has not been mentioned yet: It does not encourage
> participation. For a package author, maintaining a package entry is just
> an additional burden. And a package user cannot really do much about a
> broken package entry. 
> 
> Contrast that with the Trunk Model: One reason it works is that it takes
> almost zero effort to participate. You publish a fix to the inbox and
> announce that on squeak-dev. And it's very simple for a core developer to
> take it and commit to the trunk.
> 
> IMHO we need something similarly simple for a package management system
> for Squeak. Something where it is easy to share. If one user figures out
> how to get a particular package to load, it must be trivial to share that
> method. And submitting one such "package loading instruction" must not
> sign up the user to be perpetual maintainer of the package.
> 
> So I think the private "ownership" model is flawed. We need a package
> management system that allows easy contribution. Maybe SqueakMap can be
> restructured for this, but currently it seems heavily geared towards
> single maintainers.
> 

Let's empower people who have done legwork in finding out whether projects
work, or to make them work, to share that with the community so we're not
churning, doing the same work over and over in secret.


Chris Cunnington-3 wrote:
> 
> If the code is for 3.6, I don't suppose it would load in to 4.1 very
> readily in any
> case. Code decays over time.
> 

Sure.  I'm looking from the user perspective - if I'm working on something
that can enhanced with an existing package, whether there is slightly broken
code, or severely broken code, or no code at all, will make a big difference
in pursuing it; and if someone else already spent hours finding that out,
I'd want to know.

Sean
-- 
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Cleaning-up-SqueakMap-tp2197965p2203123.html
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.