I think SUnit could be part of Basic in the way that SM is - included as
a package, that is, without it being targeted by the update stream. 

Daniel

Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> Hi doug,
> 
> > Anthony's post brings up something I was thinking about recently... 
> > Should SUnit be part of the Basic configuration?
> >
> > The Basic configuration is the platform containing all the essential 
> > development tools, I believe.  The IDE, basically.  We haven't really 
> > strictly defined this, but this is what the original idea was.  (Side 
> > note:  I don't think there's a swiki page or anything covering what 
> > Full/Basic/Minimal are... we should write this down somewhere.)
> >
> > Is SUnit an essential development tool?  I would say yes... we are 
> > trying to encourage folks to include tests with fixes, and requiring 
> > test packages for Squeak-official packages.
> 
> If BASIC means tools essential for development then SUnit should be in. 
> (but we should be able to remove it easily because new versions of 
> Sunit are coming :).
> 
> > If we decide that SUnit should be part of Basic, this also means that 
> > we should add it back into the update stream now, since we decided to 
> > move toward Basic before we start continuing to Minimal.  I think this 
> > is probably a good idea anyway as a matter of convenience until SM 1.1 
> > and dependencies are ready.  (This is the only removed package that I 
> > think might belong in Basic... the others (Balloon3D, VMMaker, etc.) 
> > should probably stay out.)
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > - Doug