Hi!

Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote:
[SNIP]
> Other things to consider include
> 
> whether ImageSegments are to be supported in the future or not (are they
> still of any use after the image is super-condensed and packages can be
> added?)

Eh, well I use ImageSegments as a very good and simple object storage
mechanism.
But of course, Magma might be able to take over that part in time,
haven't tried it yet.

> making headless work across all machines (I see several attempts at
> doing it and it would be nice to have a single way)
> oh, loads of stuff we've argued about.
> 
> The pain I refer to is that many of the above would make for a cut in
> the backwards compatability story of squeak. Right now we can just about
> run images back to 1.3 or whatever on current VMs. After a change in CM
> format that would no longer be true. Personally I think that it would be
> worth it but other people (admittedly demented people lacking in
> intelligence :-) ) might disagree.

;-) Personally I am all for moving ahead as long as we have alternatives
in place (like for example regarding ImageSegments).

regards, Göran