[IMPORTANT] Concrete proposals!

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Mon May 12 16:26:59 UTC 2003


Hi Joshua!

"Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus" <schwa at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
[SNIP]
> > We agree on this. And yes, perhaps we have made it sound like
> > enhancements simply can't go in - but that is not true. Have you read
> > the plan for 3.6? Let me quote:
> > 
> > >...
> > >2. Then when we have a reduced image we move forward with some
> > >aggressive harvesting. 
> 
> "when we have a reduced image" is the operative phrase here.

And this was of course referring to number 1 which I left out - and that
was the removals that we now have applied. Ok? We thought that it was
best to apply the removals first and then get on with the rest - are you
arguing that this was wrong?

> > >Sure, we have performed harvesting during step 1
> > >above - but not "the heavy stuff" since we wanted to concentrate on the
> > >removals. The following areas should probably deserve our *primary
> > >attention* beside the regular harvesting:
> > >	1. Work produced by MCP.
> > >	2. Work produced by KCP.
> > >	3. Anthony's runtime enhancements.
> > >	4. Craig's simulator fixes.
> > >	5. Substantial enhancements currently on SM need to be reviewed and
> > >possibly applied.
> > >
> > >Number 5 above refers to packages on SM that essentially are
> > >improvements that could be merged into their appropriate package inside
> > >the image. For example, if there are very nice improvements to Morphic
> > >they could be folded in as long as they don't "produce inter-package
> > >dependencies". Since it will take a long time before Morphic turns into
> > >a real external package we can't keep these on hold. We will compile a
> > >list of the packages that could be considered.
> > >
> > >Then of course we have the general harvesting going on. :-) The list
> > >above is so that we do not miss these - it would be harmful to
> > >especially the MCP/KCP projects if their work didn't get the chance.
> > >...
> > 
> > Here you see that we have *explicitly* stated this. Right?
> >
> > > Your proposal will help us remember that, yes, so-and-so proposed
> > > such-and-such, but won't help code into the image unless there is
> > > a change in attitude about what gets in and what doesn't.
> > 
> > What do you mean with "change in attitude"? Reread the plan I quoted
> > above and explain what you think is wrong.
> 
> I have had the feeling that it is not worth it to fix various small 
> annoyances in the development environment UI because I didn't think
> that they would be likely to be accepted into the update stream.

Why not? I repeat:
> > >Then of course we have the general harvesting going on. :-) The list
> > >above is so that we do not miss these - it would be harmful to
> > >especially the MCP/KCP projects if their work didn't get the chance.

The point was that we need to give MCP/KCP attention because they are
doing a very focused effort and both projects are at the "core" of
things. Don't you agree?

> The 3.6 plan focuses on MCP/KCP, which might reasonably be considered
> as part of the modularization effort.  Anthony's and Craig's changes
> are "under the hood".  The remaining category, "substantial packages
> on SqueakMap", doesn't give me much more hope that small UI
> enhancements have a chance of getting into the update stream.

And then you conveniently left out what it said therefter, I repeat
*once more* then:

<neonlights>
Then of course we have the general harvesting going on. :-) 
</neonlights>

And I would definitely say that "small UI enhancements" have a *great*
chance of getting in - because they are *small*. That makes them much
easier to harvest without disturbing the partitioning process.

But please, we are trying to follow the plan and as you know we have
just applied the removals. And btw, you can also help out with the
harvesting.

> > > > ----------
> > > > Problem #2:
> > > > There is a perceived lack of Vision from the Guides. The community wants
> > > > to know "where" we are heading. I have picture hanging in front of me as
> > > > I write this. It is a poster from ThinkGeek. It looks like this:
> > > > http://www.despair.com/ignorance.html
> 
> I'll respond to this in my response to your response Andreas' response :-)

Hehe, fair!
 
> Joshua

regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list