[Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was Re: Possible extra text for Welcome

[goran.hultgren@bluefish.se]

cg@cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot) wrote:
> Doug Way <dway@riskmetrics.com> said:
> >I suppose what we're talking about here is not just a "harvesting" process, but a process for figuring out what goes into Squeak, including larger contributions from the Guides, SqC, etc.  I guess we could still use the term "harvesting" to cover all base-Squeak development?  And we also have to consider package-level harvesting as the image gets split up into packages.
> >
> 'Harvesting' implies 'adding'. As far as I'm concerned, it should be a
> 'stripping' process for the time to come, and then an 'updating/bugfixing'
> process. So even if the infrastructure stays the same, maybe it should be
> renamed post-3.5 to something which implies less bloat-orientation ;-).

Well, the new tool will be package aware so it will not only handle
FIXes to the image. Thus harvesting is still an ok term IMHO. But I
agree of course about what you mean.

> OBTW: I'm going to try to port Squeak to Posix (command line, that is). I'll 
> probably fail due to lack of time, but in the light of the whole modular
> Squeak discussion it does act as a sort of minimum Squeak reference point -
> just the VM and a minimal RTL. How small should the smallest module be? This
> small? (which would make a 'core Squeak' distribution already a collection of
> modules - 'kernel Squeak' plus user interface, primitives for
> sound/multimedia, etcetera). Not really relevant to the current discussion
> (except maybe for the infrastructure needed), it just popped up :)

Talk with Andreas and Dan - they have already done stuff in this
direction if I am not mistaken. On the other hand I haven't heard
anything about their progress so perhaps it has been abandoned. Dan said
he would post his minimal image but I never saw it, sigh...

regards, Göran