Hi

I agree with the proposal for the terms
- Kernel
- Base
- Core
The only change I would make is to speak of 'core IDE' or 'IDE core'
rather than just 'core'. 

-- Hannes

Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> 
> This proposal for "package groups" sounds pretty good to me.
> 
> "Kernel" is a well-understood term that seems like the best name for 
> what it is: The smallest amount of Squeak code which can bootstrap 
> itself into something larger.
> 
> The "base" level maps nicely to the "base image" term which Squeakers 
> love to use.  I think it's been assumed that we would need this level 
> of package group, and I like the term "base" for this.
> 
> "Core" is really the only new concept that Cees is introducing here.  I 
> wasn't sure if it was necessary at first, but I like it more after 
> thinking about it.  Roughly, it's the stuff which makes up an IDE.  To 
> be more specific, we could sometime use the term "core developer 
> packages" to refer to this pacakge group.


 
> Anyway, it's definitely good to finally get some terms nailed down.  
> I'm getting tired of people using the term "base" when they really mean 
> "kernel", and then being misinterpreted by someone else, etc. :-)
> 
> - Doug Way
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 01:45 PM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> 
> > Hi Cees and all!
> >
> > (Did I accidentally drop the SqF list? Whatever, maybe good. These
> > crossposts are probably - as Daniel said - mainly confusing. Lets keep
> > *this* thread on squeak-dev)
> >
> > Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:24, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> >>
> >>> 1. Kernel. (True, False, Array etc)
> >>> 2. Core. (DisplayScanner, FontSet etc)
> >>> 3. Base (Browser, Workspace, Debugger etc)
> >> Bad examples - 'core' being a barebones dev env, browser, workspace 
> >> and
> >> debugger will land there.=20
> >
> > Oh, sorry - I ended up "one step" wrong there. I agree that those are 
> > in
> > Core.
> >
> >>> 4. Stewarded packages not in base
> >> These will land in 'base'. Of course, to the extent that we define
> >> Stewardship as something official and, for example, differentiate
> >> between a Steward and some dumbwhit who declares himself a Steward of
> >> HttpView...
> >
> > Good - then we agree. I got confused because you wrote, and let me
> > quote:
> >>> Would "base" also be the boundary of everything maintained by 
> >>> stewards?
> >>> I mean - does base define what we call "Squeak"? Does it include all 
> >>> of
> >>> the stuff that we - as a community - considers to be "ours"?
> >>
> >> That's probably too much. As I said - lots of room for discussion 
> >> here,
> >> especially at this level.
> >
> > I interpreted this as - yes, there can be stewarded packages outside of
> > base.
> > So, I appended a little silly .project showing this model - allowed
> > dependencies are downward.
> > So Extra can depend on Base/Core/Kernel, Base on Core/Kernel, Core only
> > on Kernel.
> >
> > Correctimundo?
> >
> > I was trying to fit in VMs, plugins, unofficial kernels etc. but...
> > Well! :-) Feel free to make this .pr a bit more telling, add some
> > arrows, text - whatever.
> >
> >>> Actually, I have heard of Troves and seen it in several of these 
> >>> "tools"
> >>> around the net but I honestly don't know what they really are (except
> >>> for some kind of graph representation, right?). If you have a good 
> >>> link
> >>> I can check.
> >>
> >> I haven't checked out the theory behind it; I just noted that both
> >> Freshmeat and SourceForge use it, and it seems to be a simple and
> >> flexible categorization system. I think Eric Raymond came up with it,
> >> dunnow whether that is good ;-), but it helps in searching for more
> >> info: http://catb.org/~esr/trove/
> >
> > Thanks, Göran
> >
> > <packagegroups.001.pr>