Colin Putney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Ralph Johnson <johnson at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Right conclusion, wrong reason.  It is important to some of us Squesk users.
>>
>> The real reason to freeze the version is that the people who make new
>> versions of ob and rb are not testing in Squeak, only in Pharo.  So,
>> they will keep breaking the Squeak build unless we ensure that we only
>> update to a new version of ob after we have tested it.
> 
> Indeed. It's quite important to me that OB work well on Squeak. I'd
> like to be making more frequent releases that track Lukas' RB work,
> but I'm just too busy with other things at the moment. (Particularly
> with ESUG right around the corner!)
> 
> If somebody wants to step up and take on updating
> ConfigurationOfOmniBrowser, I'll be happy to help sort out any
> technical issues that come up. I just don't have the bandwidth to
> coordinate things.
> 
> Colin
> 
Colin, et.al.

I'm short on time myself (for the same reason), but I'd be willing to 
update the ConfigurationOfOmniBrowser for Squeak, given a list of the 
packages that are to be included ... so if someone does the 
integration/validation...providing a zipped (or downloadable) image with 
the correct omnibrowser packages loaded will be enough for me to update 
the configuration... I prefer an image, in case errors show up during my 
validation (I can cross check with other things that might be required:)...

Dale