Yes, thank you for the clarification, Frank. This makes a lot of sense
to me and I hope that others follow this line of reasoning.

--Hannes

On 2/13/13, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 February 2013 12:45, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank
>>
>> If I understand you correctly you want to do the following
>>
>> 1) unload some once packages from trunk. The packages are taken from
>> what is in the list in #unloadAllKnownPackages.
>>
>> 2) add a trunk method
>> #loadAllPackagesThatUnloadAllKnownPackagesUsedToUnload
>>
>> 3) add CI build jobs which do
>> #loadAllPackagesThatUnloadAllKnownPackagesUsedToUnload and run tests
>> on the loaded packages.
>>
>> 4) People use the result of 3) for regular work. This is the "full"
>> 4.5 image as we have of now only that we have less in trunk and the
>> unlodable packages reside in their own repositories.
>>
>> Steps 2..4 are done repeatedly.
>>
>> Is this what you mean?
>
> Yes. Perhaps with a nicer name than
> #loadAllPackagesThatUnloadAllKnownPackagesUsedToUnload. Maybe
> #loadBasicPackages or something.
>
> My main aim is to invert the approach we've had up until now, and
> _enforce_ the clean separation of these packages from the Core. I want
> it to be difficult to add a dependency from the Core to these
> packages.
>
> frank
>
>> --Hannes
>>
>> On 2/13/13, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 13 February 2013 11:22, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:28:26PM +0000, H. Hirzel wrote:
>>>>> Yanni,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think St??phane refers to the original Pharo manifesto which clearly
>>>>> states "no backward compatibility".  http://code.google.com/p/pharo/
>>>>>
>>>>> However the current Pharo web page has a mission statement
>>>>>    http://www.pharo-project.org/about
>>>>> sets a much more moderate tone.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case in this thread we want to move on towards a Squeak core
>>>>> and learn from the Pharo experience as much as possible. Please let us
>>>>> not digress from this important topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should follow both at the same time
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me call it
>>>>> - the Pavel Krivanek approach and
>>>>> - the
>>>>>      SmalltalkImage unloadAllKnownPackages
>>>>>   approach
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW
>>>>> #unloadAllKnownPackages
>>>>>
>>>>> used to work in Squeak 4.1, see
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-August/152427.html
>>>>>
>>>>> So there is no reason why we should not manage to get it working again
>>>>> in Squeak 4.5alpha.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Pavel's approach may be followed in parallel. Because fixing one
>>>>> thing will help the other and vice-verse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Exactly so. That is what I intended when I mentioned
>>>> #unloadAllKnownPackages.
>>>> Thanks for stating it so clearly.
>>>
>>> While we're being clear about what's clear :) I'm wanting to _lose_
>>> #unloadAllKnownPackages, and replace it with a
>>> #loadAllPackagesThatUnloadAllKnownPackagesUsedToUnload, and add a
>>> bunch of new jobs running those unloaded packages' test suites.
>>>
>>> That way, the thing called Squeak4.5-nnnn.image still contains what
>>> Squeak4.5-${whatever_current_is}.image, only the essence of trunk -
>>> what SqueakTrunk produces - shrinks.
>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>