[Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff

[Stephane Ducasse]

Hi guys

I'm a bit lost to know how to proceed. Our changesets are based on 3.5 
for now and they are available on the page. I do not see the need to 
send them in the list now.
Daniel: noury did a pass and improved it ;)

This afternoon we will have a discussion with the others here

Stef

On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 02:19 AM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and
> remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other removals
> either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it
> over with, so we can go back to work.
>
> Do that, I'll test vs. KCP, we load KCP, and then resume harvesting the
> regular stuff.
>
> Daniel
>
> Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
>>
>> (moving this to the SqF list since we're doing the final coordination 
>> now...)
>>
>> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, I've gone through the KCP stuff. I know we orginally decided to 
>>> do
>>> the removals first, but I had an urge, and this doesn't touch so many
>>> different classes that I'm very worried about clashes. Anyway, it 
>>> seems
>>> as the designated reviewer for this specific project I got back from 
>>> my
>>> vacation before the removals were done, and I don't see much reason 
>>> not
>>> to merge these now, but I don't mind checking the conflicts if this
>>> proposal isn't accepted.
>>
>> Okay, we need to get moving on the KCP stuff and the removals now, so 
>> we can
>> move on with the 3.6 plan (including the various enhancements we've 
>> been
>> discussing).
>>
>> Here's what I would suggest:  We incorporate the 10 removals first, 
>> all in one
>> batch as Goran and I suggested.  This would be very soon, let's say 
>> tomorrow.
>> Then, Daniel can check for conflicts between the approved KCP items 
>> and the
>> removals.  My understanding is that there should be few conflicts.
>>
>> Then, the adjusted KCP changes can be incorporated (after having at 
>> least the
>> preambles posted to the list as a sort of final review).  If changes 
>> need to
>> be made in a few of the removed packages to account for the KCP 
>> changes,
>> perhaps Daniel could inform the package owners of the required 
>> changes.
>>
>>
>> Anyway, I think doing all the removals in one batch is the way to go. 
>>  There
>> will be two types of problems we'll have to deal with:
>>
>> 1. Problems/bugs caused by the removals.  These should be relatively 
>> minor and
>> easy to fix, I'd think.
>>
>> 2. Problems/bugs/conflicts when re-loading any or all of the 10 
>> packages.
>> These problems will probably be more significant, but these problems 
>> need to
>> be pushed back to the package owners at some point anyway.  We're 
>> moving to a
>> model where package owners need to maintain their packages against 
>> base image
>> (prerequisite) changes, so we might as well start this now.  It may 
>> well be
>> that some packages (such as PWS) are not actively maintained and 
>> become
>> obsolete because no one really uses them.  If that happens, either a 
>> more
>> active package maintainer will have to step up, or the package could 
>> be
>> removed from "Squeak Official" status, which would remove it from the 
>> public
>> release.
>>
>>
>> Before thinking about incorporating the 10 removals, I decided to do 
>> some
>> testing.  To remove the 10 packages, I gave Goran's removal script a 
>> try.
>> That appears to work.
>>
>> Then I decided to try re-adding the 10 packages one by one into an 
>> image to
>> get back to the "Full" release.  I did it in this order, with the 
>> following
>> results:
>>
>> 1. SUnit - Yes.
>> 2. BaseImage Tests - Yes.
>> 3. Celeste Installation - Yes.
>> 4. Games (and GamesTests) - Yes.
>> 5. VMMaker - No.  Not auto-installable, but trying to download it 
>> results in a
>> "MNU: download", even after setting the download directory.
>> 6. MacroBenchmarks - No.  Couldn't find a MacroBenchmarks package on 
>> SM!
>> 7. PWS Installation - Yes.
>> 8. Scamper - Yes.
>> 9. Speech - No.  Installation results in a "MNU: arpabet".
>> 10. Balloon3D - Yes.
>>
>> So, we need to at least fix the loading problems with the three 
>> packages
>> before incorporating the removals.
>>
>> Beyond that, ideally we'd also like to have Test packages for all 10 
>> of these
>> packages as well, which pass... right now only a few packages have 
>> them.  I
>> don't think we should hold up incorporating the removals for this, 
>> though.
>> But we should probably try to have them available before we move to 
>> 3.6beta,
>> at least.  Marcus and I can work on bugging the package owners to 
>> create these
>> Test packages.  All future package removal/additions will have to 
>> have a
>> corresponding Test package ahead of time so we don't get in this 
>> situation
>> again.
>>
>> We still need to resolve the issue of how I should load the removal 
>> script
>> without SqueakMap, SAR, etc., because those won't be there in the 
>> vanilla
>> 3.6alpha image.  Probably SAR is the only really important one... I 
>> don't know
>> if any require DVS.  I guess I'll just have to poke around with the 
>> removal
>> scripts and make them into a series of regular file-ins.  (An 
>> alternative
>> might be to include SAR in the base image for now.  SAR should 
>> probably be
>> part of the Full and Basic releases anyway.  Yes, we would end up 
>> splitting
>> off SAR again sometime later as we whittled down to the Minimal 
>> image, but so
>> what?  Same probably goes for SqueakMap.)
>>
>> - Doug Way
>> _______________________________________________
>> Squeakfoundation mailing list
>> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>