3.7 Full: Developers or Media users?

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Mon May 24 08:58:57 UTC 2004


Hi people!

(I am just following this thread loosely)

Dean_Swan at Mitel.COM wrote:
> Just to add an opinion, my benchmark for what should be in a "Full" image 
> would be either Squeak3.2-4956, or Squeak3.4-5170.  Basically, I expect a 
> "Full" image to have at least everything that was in the 3.2-4956 image. I 
> don't necessarily mean every class and every method, but at least all the 
> major functionality.  I know that occasionally methods are depracated for 
> good reason, and that's fine.
> 
> Now, neither of those releases included things like the RB, Monticello, 
> etc, so while they're nice to have, I wouldn't necessarily expect it in a 
> future "Full" image.  I would condsider things like that as developer 
> "goodies" that could be omitted, but I would still expect the system 
> browser, compiler, VM construction, PlayWithMe/Worlds of Squeak, EToys 
> type stuff.

Personally I think we should "keep things simple" so that Full is just
Basic + more.
Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion, but IMHO we shouldn't remove
developer tools in Full that are in Basic.

And another thing - we have been talking about having Monticello
included in Basic. I think that would be good.
Monticello is a major important piece of the whole "packages" thing, we
have discussed it earlier too.

Avi?

regards, Göran

PS. And of course, when I say "in Basic" I mean "as a package" - just
like with say PackageInfo or SqueakMap.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list