Thanks craig for this email.
My gut feeling impression is that 4.0 is far in the future for me. So 
may be if someone is willing to do that
it would be a good idea to have Flow sooner. I understand that you want 
to focus on something else, still
I'm a bit afraid that this will not happen (but may be this is my dark 
face that is talking).

Stef

Contineu your work on Squat, I'm really interested by that.

On Mardi, déc 2, 2003, at 21:05 Europe/Zurich, Craig Latta wrote:

>
> 	(This seemed sufficiently different from the original thread subject,
> "FileList[2]>directory: oddity", that I thought I'd start a new thread.
> Squat mailing list info is at http://netjam.org/squat . Squat is a
> minimal-snapshot-and-virtual-machine project.)
>
> Hi Stef--
>
>> do you have a plan to get a smooth integration of Flow (meaning
>> slowly deprecate the current stream)? If I remember old discussions
>> people were afraid of big bang changes. However it would be good to
>> start to thing how flow could become a good replacement of Stream.
>>
>> What are your current plans? I'm not expert in Streams so does
>> anybody expertise on Flow and stream comment?
>
> 	As I've mentioned before on the Squeak list (but not on a webpage,
> sorry, will get to that), I'm focusing my attention on Flow releases 
> for
> Squeak 4 and beyond, when ostensibly there will be a minimal snapshot 
> to
> work from. It's just so much nicer than dealing with the traditional
> accreted snapshot and the release process constaints it imposes. And I
> don't just feel that way in the context of Flow; I want to release
> *everything* I do as modules for a minimal snapshot.
>
> 	After that infrastructure is in place and Flow is available through 
> it,
> then I might make releases for older systems. It's not all that hard; I
> had to do it for 2.2 to get the Squat work started, after all. :)  It
> just takes time, and the minimal snapshot work is much more important 
> to
> me right now.
>
> 	So that's timing (although we don't have dates for things yet). As for
> the technical execution, I think it'd be straightforward. I've been
> careful in each Flow release so far to make sure that the old and new
> stuff work together in the same system, although some *clients* may 
> need
> to be updated, when there is class name contention. The most recent
> release of Flow, 2 alpha, does this for Squeak 3.2, the version that 
> was
> current at the time (August 2002). Class name contention was the main
> issue with that release (the old Stream became "OldStream", etc.). Not
> really a big deal, in my opinion, and of course handled a lot more
> easily in a modularized system (where one can refer to classes by ID 
> and
> not name, for example, and have multiple versions also). I've found in
> the past that if you let the old things keep the old names, people stay
> complacent, even if you run reports that point out who hasn't converted
> yet. :)  Finally, the Flow 2a release has everything separated out
> pretty well into different changesets; in particular, all the
> forward-compatibility stuff is easy to find.
>
> 	Another thing that makes me confident is that I've already converted a
> Squeak system from old streams to new (at a past employer). I actually
> removed all the old stuff, and things were fine.
>
>
> 	thanks,
>
> -C
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> http://netjam.org/resume
> craig at netjam.org
> [|] Proceed for Truth!
>
>