About 3.6 alpha process: to break the less

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Wed Jun 4 23:11:23 UTC 2003


Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
[Removals should be such that reloading the package is additive]
> Yes, that should be the goal.  Hmm, I wonder how many of the currently 
> removed packages live up to this?  I suppose I could fire up the 
> ConflictChecker and find out...
> 
> (And I assume by "not modifying code" we agree that class extensions are 
> allowed, but overwriting methods is not allowed.)
Yup.

[Packages delimited using PackageInfo]
> It sounds like we're agreed that PackageInfo should be something of a 
> standard for now.  We could plan on adding PackageInfo to the update 
> stream soon.  (Possibly along with SqueakMap and SAR.  Well, depending 
> on whether those get added to the update stream or kept on some sort of 
> Basic Image package... more on that later.)

I think PackageInfo should be treated the same way we intended for SM -
maintained, released and provided by it's maintainer, as an SM package,
with the update stream containing occaisonal "reload package X" updates.
This really really should be "reload version n of package X", so we know
what we're inviting into the users image, but we'll have that after
SM1.1 comes.

For these packages to be official does mean that they'd be subject to
some policy we've yet to invent, and that their contents should not
change very surprisingly, since they're part of an official release.
IOW, Avi, PackageInfo will have to slim back down unless I get shouted
down with cries that a VW3 package exporter is really generally
essential ;-) 

Daniel



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list