3.9alpha update stream (was Re: source.squeakfoundation.org)

[Daniel Vainsencher]

Under the assumption that the placing of code under packages is done 
simply by creating an MC package for every otherwise-uncategorized 
method, and therefore is no work at all (I think that's what Andreas 
says that doIt does, if not, that's not hard to write):

I think its better to have everything in packages, so people don't meet 
technical problems such as "I changed a bunch of methods, uploaded the 
packages that changed in MC, but one of my methods didn't appear".

The down side is we might have a couple of dumb packages, but we'll be 
moving code between packages forever anyway (detangling), so who cares?

Daniel

Avi Bryant wrote:
> On 6/30/05, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Depends on whether you wanted to have the system fully packagized or
>>not. This is a key question - I have no interest whatsover in another
>>"partially packaged" system. We have this already.
> 
> 
> I'm certainly with you on having a fully packagized system; the main
> question I have is whether we want to fully packagize it eagerly or
> lazily.  You've done a great job of getting the bulk of the packaging
> done, and that may be enough to start with; as long as we have a fully
> packagized *process*, the rest can come along at a slower rate.  That
> is, if there's no way to submit a FIX or ENH, or get an update from
> the stream, for code that's not packagized, then the first time we
> need to actually change one of those loose methods, it will get dealt
> with - and probably more thoughtfully than if we try to do them all at
> once now.  Another strategy might be to recategorize them to all be in
> an *orphaned package rather than creating tons of tiny packages, with
> the rule that when you modify a method in that package, you need to
> try to move it out (so it should shrink over time).
> 
> But that's just my $0.02 - if others are less inclined to punt, and
> want to do it properly up front, great.  It might not turn out to be
> that much work.
> 
> 
>>No! Please, no! Not "as if" - make it the real thing! What is the
>>problem with just downloading the package and installing it? If people
>>don't want to wait they can always just grab a preloaded image.
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  I suspect most people will just grab the preloaded one anyway.
> 
> Avi
>