On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:05:17 -0800, Dan Ingalls <Dan at squeakland.org> wrote:
> Greetings Florin, Goran, Cees, Steven, Brian, David, and Craig, Ned, Colin!
> ... and anyone else who is interested but hasn't yet said so.

I've been away from squeak-dev for a week (and my, what a week of
traffic to catch up on), but - count me in.  I liked what Craig said
about designer/implementor/user: I too, would *love* to just be a
user, but I recognize that my needs as a user may not be met without
doing some design, and I've long been used to the fact that design is
useless unless you commit to implementing it :).

As to what I'd like to see in such a system, Colin's already talked
about our plans for the next major iteration of Monticello; obviously,
I'd hope that our work there will somehow play a role in the module
work - even if (or perhaps ideally if) that role is "modules isn't
going to address versioning, that's Monticello's job".  That is, in
fact, another key aspect of what I think is important in going
forward: the word "module" can describe solutions to so many different
kinds of problems, and I think it's critical that we are clear from
the start about which problems we are trying to solve, and not
conflate the solutions to too many of them into one mechanism.  The
flip side of that is that we not solve the same problem multiple
times: versioning and partitioning may be separate problems, but a
versioning mechanism should build on the partitioning mechanism used
by the rest of the image, not invent its own (as Store effectively
does in VW).

Forgive me if I'm saying things that are obvious or have already been
said in the maze of threads that have popped up recently; I *think*
I've seen most of the relevant postings but it's hard to be sure when
not reading them as they come in...

Avi