danielv at netvision.net.il
Tue Apr 1 19:53:45 CEST 2003
Ok, Goran, I can see when I'm beaten :-)
Since I'm still not interested in taking this as a fixed role, and
you've decided it's needed, I don't mind if you and Doug (or someone
else) take it up. Heck, I'll even help along occaisonally. While I'm at
it, I'll try to subvert it from a "Plan", to a "statement of the Guides
perceived best direction for Squeak n.m" :-)
What do I think should happen in 3.6?
I think the most important thing for this version is not to get to a
specific goal, but to get a few processes going. Here's a partial list.
* Restart harvesting using the new process, hopefully removing some
* Get the simulator fixes by Craig back in.
* Start merging Anthony's work. Run time stuff is a good place to start.
* Start merging MCP's work, as they start to send it to us. Same for
KCP, except I for one am less aware of what they're working on, and have
less of an idea as to whether they'll have something ready to merge
* Networking/Streams/Sockets is something where a few people have put in
quite a lot of work. Find a way to start merging at least some of this
stuff, in small pieces. Ideally, we should do everything possible
without breaking networking applications. Then break networking (start
raising exceptions instead of dialogs) in 3.7alpha.
* SM 1.1
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> Hi all!
> Well, it seems we lost a thread here somewhere. 3.6 is starting up and
> we really need to have a Plan for it. No, don't say "we need no plan,
> just a date" because that just isn't true.
> We need *both* IMHO. 3.6 is really going to shake things around so I
> repeat - We Really Do Need A Plan - ok?
> Good, now that we have that out of the way :-) we also quickly realize
> that to get a plan we need someone who crafts it. No, don't say "we
> don't want somebody telling us what to do" because that isn't the way it
> should be done.
> The plan should of course be worked out on squeak-dev through
> discussions (as always) but somebody needs to moderate, collect and
> formulate it. So, without further ado - who takes this assignment?
> I have the following suggestions:
> - Ned. But Ned is worth so much more doing harvesting (?) or other
> complex debugger-digging, and I don't think Ned really "likes" the
> moderation role! :-)
> - Tim. Tim has a lot of good knowledge when it comes to the tougher big
> enhancements we have lined up in front of us possibly in part for 3.6
> (think Anthony), what do you say Tim?
> - Me and Doug. Since Daniel (otherwise an obvious choice) has indicated
> that he isn't interested (I got that through "readsay") the last
> alternative is a combination of me and Doug. We tend to agree on most
> things and we are already lined up to take this assignment if Ned and
> Tim says no.
> Note: I didn't propose Craig here becuase I think he is busy with Squat
> etc and not really interested in this. Just a guess.
> Ok, so lets be quick here - Ned, Tim or Me+Doug? And please don't start
> discussing the need for someone doing this - Doug wants someone and he
> *is* in charge of the update stream so darnit, just accept the fact that
> we need someone doing this. :-)
> As soon as we have this decided the MasterPlanner(s) should probably IMO
> start a quick "round up" thread on squeak-dev to collect ideas on what
> 3.6 will/should/could be made of.
> regards, Göran
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation