Göran wrote:

"... I am simply amazed at the low amount of feedback so far. Don't you all
see the importance of this tool?"

Chris replies:

Hi Göran.  :-)

Frankly, I'm up to my eyeballs in work, so Squeak (which is a hobby for me)
has taken the back seat for a while.  I do like the concept of SqueakMap,
but I don't have the time right now to get involved.

FWIW, I did look over your web pages a couple of times.  One thing that I
think is crucial in a system like this is a built-in compatibility matrix.
If an application, for example, was written for Squeak 2.8 and also works
against 3.0, the SqueakMap entry should identify this fact.  In fact, you
should be able to browse for apps by Squeak compatibility.

Here's a use case I would suggest is "typical".

1.  Sally writes a nifty enhancement for the Browser.  She posts it to the
list.  The enhancement is compatible with Squeak 2.8.

2.  Time passes.  Squeak 2.9 is released.  Sally retests her enhancement and
decides it is 100% compatible with Squeak 2.9.  She goes to SqueakMap and
adds 2.9 to the list of compatible releases for her enhancement.

3.  More time passes and now Squeak is at 3.0.  Sally updates her feature
and to work with 3.0.  She posts her update to SqueakMap.  Since the
functionality has not changed, the SqueakMap does not require a new feature
entry, just a new URL for the 3.0 version of the enhancement.

4.  Chris has a 2.9 image.  He goes to SqueakMap and downloads Sally's
feature.  SqueakMap offers 2 versions of the enhancement, one for 2.8 & 2.9
and one for 3.0.  Chris downloads the 2.9 version of the enhancement.  Chris
is a happy camper.  He adds a comment to the SqueakMap, declaring that the
feature works on his configuration (Squeak 2.9, Windows VM, Windows NT,
etc.) 

[I'm implying here that a version compatibility success/failure chart could
be built in for each item in the SqueakMap -- a simple automated feedback
URL could be requested after each download]

5.  Tim also has a 2.9 image.  He goes to SqueakMap and downloads Sally's
feature.  John downloads the 2.9 version of the enhancement.  Tim is not
happy -- the enhancement does *not* work on Acorns.  He adds a comment to
the SqueakMap, declaring that the feature does *not* work with his
configuration (Squeak 2.9, Acorn VM, etc.)

6.  More time passes and now Squeak 3.3alpha requires an update for Sally's
enhancement.  Sally is on vacation, so Chris ports the feature to 3.3alpha.
He posts an updated changeset to SqueakMap and adds new comments and
compatibility information.

7.  Repeat ad infinitum.

I hope that SqueakMap will be able to handle this example.  :-)

Cheers & best wishes,

---==> Chris