<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> BTW, I'm *very* happy to see that you've found a way by which you feel comfortable contributing to Squeak. Your help is most welcome.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>I am not really "comfortable" contributing to squeak...</div><div><br></div><div>What I am doing is pursuing my own line of development, a fork if you will. However I am choosing to do this in an unselfish way, by discussing ideas, and publishing code in such a way as to be useful to others.</div><div><br></div><div>I disagree with the trunk approach to development, because it professes to be a community effort to move things forward, however it is being pursued in the same manner as a fork, whose code is not published or managed in a state that others can routinely harvest.</div><div><br></div><div>I continue to think that the tools are unhelpful in this process. Cuis2.0 adds a new dimension to this, since it doesn't have any tools! It forces you to think simply, and more importantly to think beyond the constraints of Monticello, and Mantis.</div><div><br></div><div>This new batch of tools I am developing for publishing and maintaining slices of kernel functionality within Cuis, can also be used to routinely extract slices of functionality out of Squeak and Pharo. So if I find something I do like, I will be able to extract it, and track its development.</div><div><br></div><div>If successful in their minimalization efforts, Pharo, and Squeak will eventually become minimal kernels, having no tools of their own, and this way of thinking may become strangely relevant once more.</div><div><br></div><div>Keith</div></body></html>