3.7 Full: Developers or Media users?
dway at mailcan.com
Thu May 20 22:47:43 UTC 2004
Avi Bryant wrote:
> On May 20, 2004, at 1:59 PM, Doug Way wrote:
>> I agree. I think it's probably simpler to have just have one Full
>> image which has lots of developer goodies as well as media content.
>> It's not worth the extra maintenance effort to have a special
>> Media-Full image, and then a Developer-Full image.
>> However, I understand that getting this Full Assembler package
>> together is a lot of work for Diego. So if he wants to limit the
>> amount of developer goodies to a modest number of things for now,
>> that makes sense.
> This seems somewhat contradictory. Either we have a Full image which
> does have developer goodies, or Diego doesn't have time to include
> them and so we need a separate Developer-Full image. To say "we don't
> need a developer image because the media image will have developer
> stuff, but we don't have time to actually put the developer stuff in
> because media is a higher priority" doesn't make sense: you end up
> just not meeting the needs of the developers.
> I don't mind which we go with, as I can see good arguments either way,
> but if the Full image is not in practice going to include adequate
> developer support, then let's be explicit about that and open the way
> for someone to put together a proper developer-oriented distribution.
True. Mostly I was fishing about to get an idea of whether Diego was
interested in doing this, and whether he'd be able to get a sufficient
number of developer goodies for such an image. Although what exactly
would go in the developer portion of this image is up for debate... we
haven't actually had an image like this before. (not maintained on SM,
If Diego doesn't want to do the developer tools stuff, we'll have to
find a volunteer to maintain the Developer-Full image content.
Ideally, if it's doable, I still think we'd be better off with one Full
image (Media+Developer) and not two separate ones.
More information about the Squeak-dev