[squeak-dev] Re: Resolution of Contentious Issues

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Mon May 9 08:16:33 UTC 2011


On 5/9/2011 9:42, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> Sure. Off the top of my head, beyond namespaces, I've seen threads start
> and die more than once around:
>
>   - how to get from a monolithic image to a kernel image
>   - whether or not to integrate with conventional SCM tools and/or how
>   - the un-forking/re-integration of things like Monticello

And how were these issues resolved?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de
> <mailto:andreas.raab at gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>     On 5/9/2011 0:07, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>
>         I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened
>         at the
>         first SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in
>         circles in
>         squeak-dev, while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make
>         decisions about stuff like this, and then as a result get to make
>         progress, even on issues which are contentious in their community.
>
>
>     Curious: Do you have a couple of examples for such issues?
>
>     Cheers,
>       - Andreas
>
>
>
>
> --
> Casey Ransberger
>
>
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list