On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:26:59PM +0100, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> 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?

No.  I took the quote out of context (I didn't read number 1).  I
understood the phrase similarly to how one might understand (please
excuse the UScentricity) "when we have won the War on Terror/Drugs".

I concede you the point.

> 
> > > >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?

Yes.

> 
> > 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.

Ok, I believe you.  Next time I feel an itch, I'll go ahead and scratch it.

> 
> 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.

I know, I really should.  I'm already a bit overcommitted, though.

Best,
Joshua


> 
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > 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