[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
|