goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Sat Apr 5 17:56:38 CEST 2003
(Ahhh, how nice to not discuss licensing issues :-) )
Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> > goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > 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. :-)
> Ok, since neither Ned, Tim nor Craig volunteered for this task, I think we
> should go with the Goran+Doug master planner plan, so we can move forward. I
> can understand that no one might jump at volunteering for this particular
> task... it could make one rather unpopular. But if it's going to be
> Goran+Doug, I can simply blame Goran for any poor decisions. ;-)
Right! I seem to have some nice Karma right now that I can burn on bad
You and me it is then... Muuuaahahahaha! (loud evil laughter as the
thought sinks in)
> > > 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.
> Um, yes. You can start that up if you'd like.
I will do that. I will start by scanning all the relevant posts that
already have been made on the subject and build a "gross shopping list"
which we can pick and choose from. I will also post on squeak-dev that
we are currently doing this to encourage postings on the subject.
> One thing about the plan that I think we have agreed on to some extent is the
> 4-month time period, and the notion that the release date would generally be
> more firm than the release content. When I proposed this, there was some
> agreement, and no disagreement. With the First Fridays system, the release
> date would be August 1st. So, if there are no last-minute disagreements,
> let's consider this part of the plan as set in stone.
> Other than that, I think Daniel's list of items below is a good start. Some
> items such as the "simulator fixes by Craig" might even be a finer level of
> granularity than is necessary for a release plan. Most bug fixes do not
> really need to be in the plan. However, if the simulator fixes are
> large/significant fixes, then sure, we can include them in the plan.
I agree - we don't need to include simple small FIXes, that is
definitely not the point of the plan.
But I do want us to decide on the bigger issues. And then, as you wrote
- the release date will always limit what actually get in, in the end.
> Items I might add to the list are:
> * Apply some number of package removals to the image. (Perhaps you were
> taking this one for granted.) I don't think we should try to plan exactly
> which ones will be removed, but we could set a rough goal of a certain number
> of MB removed from the image, perhaps.
> * Remove the Apple fonts from the image, and replace them with functionally
> similar bitmap fonts. We would still need to decide whether this meant the
> Accufonts, or a move to ISO-8859-1.
Oh, and yeah:
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > 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
Actually I wasn't proposing this as a "fixed role" (sorry if it sounded
like that) - I was merely proposing the role for 3.6. After that someone
else may take the wheel! :-)
More information about the Squeakfoundation