Okay, sorry about the troll, I just couldn't resist:)

It's worth pointing out that Hudson won't care a lick about what solution we arrive upon for modularity. I can set it up to just run all of the tests that don't take forever to run at first. Later, we can configure different builds to test different packages. 

What I'm saying is that much of the work of getting CI up and running is *not* blocked on this issue, and dealing with the consequences of whatever process or technical solution we come up with regarding modularity will have to be done in addition to the work I'm offering to do now *anyway.*

Does that make sense? So we don't lose anything, because I won't be doing any work that I know I'll have to discard any time soon.  

On May 3, 2011, at 7:30 PM, Chris Cunnington <smalltalktelevision at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Casey,
> 
> Your offer to help with a Hudson server is valuable. And it will likely be very valuable in the near future. I'm responding, because I don't want your potential contribution to be ignored.
> 
> There are some arguments that need to be worked out "in camera" before the way forward is clear. You're an excellent programmer. Let us hammer out some of the details first. The topic of modularity has come seemingly all at once, but this plan has been waiting a year and this convocation of the Squeak board has a year to get things set on the right course.
> 
> For what it's worth, the video you're looking for is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4I7fSVNX2A
> 
> If you go back to September Squeak postings you'll find I was one of it's earliest proponents. And although I can't find the post right now, Stef rejected this as a model for namespaces in Pharo.
> 
> I don't want to say "We'll get back to you" and sound like a jerk, but there's a screaming match brewing that the SOB that needs to resolve in private before we can say what the next step is.
> 
> Please bear with us,
> 
> Chris
>