Since the score's currently {squeak-smalltalk: 3 squeak-project: 0} (I
changed my mind - today, it's more important to let people find us),
I've renamed the organisation to "squeak-smalltalk".

I must stress that this can be changed; I'm squatting the name until
the community rejects it.

(Now if I could just see some commits in proportion to the amount of
bikeshedding I'd be even happier! (*))

frank

(*) Not that there's been a huge amount of bikeshed. I remain in hope/horror.

On 20 May 2013 06:40, Casey Ransberger <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> And I second squeak-smalltalk if someone can nab it.
>
> Squeak is presently -- in my view anyway -- both a dialect and a family thereof. Spiritual and literal descendant thing more or less aside:)
>
> On May 19, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19 May 2013 20:17, Edgar J. De Cleene <edgardec2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we
>>>> ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk.
>>>
>>> You believe this???
>>
>> Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you
>> mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk,
>> then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards"
>> 15 years and older.
>>
>> But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for
>> "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been
>> called.
>>
>> frank
>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>