[ANN] 3.9a from 6696 -> 6702

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sat Nov 5 21:44:39 UTC 2005


Ok I see! The tools vs patches was not clear to me until I play with  
them this evening.
Before I was facing built scripts :). But this sounds to be fixed now.

Now removing the package PlusTools is trivial, so we can do the  
following:
ask if some people are interested to help to bring them to the right  
state
and then we migrate to them, or we simply unload them.

Now this is easier since all the patches have been integrated.

Stef


> stéphane ducasse wrote:
>
>> You should have said that before we spent a week evenings and  
>> some  days on that.
>> In addition as it was not easy to load it, nobody would have got  
>> a  look at it and after this would have been lost.
>> As Cees spent energy and requested reviews (and you did not say   
>> anything) then we did it.
>> So we can throw it away but this would be stupid now.
>>
>
> I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. There are two parts  
> here: One is the set of changes that make the tools actually  
> unloadable, and that part is absolutely welcome and worthwhile.  
> These are what I call the PlusTools "patches" and is really the  
> majority of stuff we're talking about.
>
> The second part is the actual PlusTools "package". That one I'm not  
> too happy about (at least right now) because unless we remove the  
> standard tool set it seems quite pointless to have two sets of  
> tools in a "basic" image. However, PlusTools are simply not at the  
> point where they could replace the standard tools so it would be  
> better if those people who have an interested in it load PlusTools  
> if they want to.
>
>
>> We can also let people fix it slowly and use the standardToolSet.
>>
>
> Again, I just don't think that a half-finished package belongs into  
> a "basic" image, no matter what reason.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list