Hi Gang,

The "decisions" made below are GREAT. Moreover, I'm happy too see that 
SqC is
also thinking along these same lines. So far, so good. The only thing 
missing from
this chain of events is Anthony Hannan's BCVM stuff, with or without J5.

Is it possible, or practical, to make the jump to VI4, or the BCVM or 
whatever
this effort iis currently being called, now and deal with J5 issues 
later?

Cheers, Roger.....

On Thursday, Nov 7, 2002, at 13:39 America/Denver, Michael Rueger wrote:

>
> Modules discussion
>
> Before the SqueakBOF a bunch of Squeakers met for about 1 hour to
> discuss the current situation regarding "modules". It is a complex
> question that covers many different areas that are often mixed up. 
> There
> were approximately 15-20 (?) Squeakers present including Michael Rueger
> (representing SqC), Doug Way, Ned Konz, Avi Bryant, me (Göran 
> Hultgren),
> Stephen Pair, Roel Wuyts and many others.
> At SqC there is a lot of interest and Dan said he'll pen a response 
> from SqC later today regarding these and other related topics.
>
> Here are the preliminary "decisions" that came out of that meeting:
>
> 1. We decided to abandon the Modules system currently begun in 3.3alpha
> and freeze 3.3alpha, because it will be very hard to "undo" it. We will
> salvage all the updates in 3.3a that are not related to Modules.
> According to Michael, Scott Wallace has already put quite some effort 
> into this and a first 3.4 release could be out very soon.
>
>
> 2. We will create 3.4alpha from the current 3.2 and push the salvaged
> updates into that.
>
> 3. We will salvage image refactorings that have been made in 3.3alpha.
>
> 4. We move forward with the "lightweight route" that SM and DVS gives 
> us
> today. This means that SM goes into the 3.2 update stream (and of 
> course
> it will also be in 3.4alpha) and there is a green light to start
> breaking out stuff from the 3.4alpha image into packages on SqueakMap.
> This process should of course be done cooperatively and coordinated.
> Thus, piece by piece the image will shrink and the maintenance
> responsibility for Squeak will become more and more distributed.
>
> 5. The green light for the "lightweight route" means we will also start
> thinking about adding support for package releases and dependencies
> between those in SM, but this really needs to be discussed in more
> detail before being adopted.
> For the time being there will be no packaging mechanism in the 
> standard image. People are free to use DVS or other tools to organize 
> their work and load it into the standard image through e.g. SqueakMap.
>
> 6. The image will remain a centrally managed base using the update
> stream as before, but given SM and tools like DVS it will start to
> shrink and individual maintainers can start managing their own packages
> outside of the image.
>
>
> Göran, Doug, Ned, Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>