Basic tenets of what goes in the image (was: [Squeakfoundation]Flow integration)

[goran.hultgren@bluefish.se]

Daniel Vainsencher <danielv@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> Goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
> > Daniel Vainsencher <danielv@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> [Blablabla]
> 
> Goran wrote:
> > My point being that new stuff should simple NOT go into the image *at
> > all*! It seems to me that you are perhaps forgetting the base principle
> > that only fixes+really good enhs+package removals should go into the
> > base image! It is easy to forget though - we all tend to do that in
> > these discussions.
> 
> Well, maybe I didn't make it clear. I agree we don't want new
> functionality in the image. My post refers to fixes, improvements and
> refactorings. Why improvements? see below.

I thought you were proposing getting Flow into the image. Perhaps I
misunderstood.

> > For example, TestRunner... Why is that in the image? Cut it out into a
> > package.
> We don't have configurations just yet, and we don't have tiny images
> that load themselves up yet, we're just working on it. If we already
> have a TestRunner in the image, it's better for it to be more usable.
> Nevertheless, it should be removable, and at some point, removed from
> the base (Actually, I think it's removable right now, but I wouldn't
> hurry to remove it quite yet).

I agree - enhancing it etc is fine, as long as we don't tangle it up of
course.
I just reacted (perhaps wrongly) on this focus on getting stuff into the
image (read for example Flow).
Flow is nice and all but the discussion was IMHO going in the wrong way.
But I have tried to explain that in another posting so...

> > > I'd like comments on this at least from all Guides.
> > > 
> > > Before we decide how to get there on any specific package, we need to
> > > make it clear where we're going.
> > 
> > I strongly urge everyone to keep the focus on *packages* and not the
> > base image. This also applies to the discussion about 3.4alpha going
> > into beta and the discussion about putting SM into the base image, btw.
> > 
> > If people still want to talk about a "base" of some kind then by all
> > means we should create one! How? By selecting packages that we want to
> > consider to be the base packages.
> I think we're all most interested in the transition to a modular Squeak,
> but we also need to give those modules the best base we can. So we need
> to do some work on what is in the image. I think it's best to be eager
> to modularize the parts of the image that are uncontroversial, and wary
> about the problem parts. 
>
> What we certainly can't do is remove components that many things still
> in the image are dependent on.

We are surely in agreement here.

regards, Göran