TimeStamp does seem redundant, I see no reason we shouldn't get rid of
it.  Somebody just needs to do it (while taking the necessary care you
alluded to)..

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Chris Cunningham
<cunningham.cb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi. First, the background.
>
> I've been living in (and using daily) an image dating back to roughly 4.10
> times, but updated to some point post-5.1 , and lately it has become very
> clear that I have really done something nasty to the image.  When I save and
> quit, errors pop up, but it saves successfully and restarts without errors.
> On the machine I saved it on.  I can't get the image to run on any other
> system that I have access too, which is scary.
>
> I think this is related to the fact that I use ODBC, which has its own
> definition of TimeStamp.  This has collided significantly with the current
> Squeak definition of TimeStamp, and I think this collision has caused my
> these issues.
>
> I'll be working on a new packaging of the ODBC client that doesn't reference
> TimeStamp at all, but rather deals with DateAndTime.  But that's just one
> package that used a 'TimeStamp' - I believe there are others out there.
> Which brings up my question here:
>
> Can we remove TimeStamp from the back package?
>
> Its representation is definitely not what any older package would expect of
> TimeStamp.
> TimeStamp appears to be a shim over DateAndTime for: TestRunner/SUnit,
> SqueakMap, Monticello, and ChangeRecord.  These could learn to use the
> DateAndTime, although that would require careful changes (very careful!).
>
> Thanks,
> cbc
>
>
>