Update stream -> MC (was: Re: About a working group on CS->MC)

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Wed Oct 20 20:03:20 UTC 2004


ok I will try to find some time. Now I'm back in big VW hacking (MOF, 
XMI, XSD) so
squeak is not in the immediate radar :)

Stef

On 19 oct. 04, at 23:37, danielv at techunix.technion.ac.il wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list