Sure. Get UnstableSqueak, insert into it some changes that are
reasonably safe and fit the goal (I know you look into exactly this kind
of stuff), and commit it in. Work with it, give feedback.

Daniel

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> I think that this experiment is really important!!!
> How can I help?
> Do you need more packages?
> 
> Stef
> 
> On 10 oct. 04, at 17:44, Avi Bryant wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Oct 10, 2004, at 4:30 PM, danielv at tx.technion.ac.il wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, did a first shot at it.
> >> Some background on proposals to Squeak development:
> >> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3864
> >>
> >> UnstableSqueak main page:
> >> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3865
> >>
> >> which links to another page about more benefits of using MC instead of
> >> the update stream.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >>  I'd propose the following:
> >>
> >> The first release of Unstable Squeak should focus on extendibility - 
> >> it
> >> should include some of those extension mechanisms (like Services)
> >> floating around. It should make it possible for various packages that
> >> currently override stuff in Squeak to get integrated stop doing so.
> >>
> >> Does this make sense?
> >
> > Since you're right that nobody seems to be committing without such a 
> > goal - sure, sounds good.  Let's get OmniBrowser in there too, and 
> > John Pierce's #inform:/confirm:/request: automation.
> >
> > Avi
> >
> >