> For the abstractions and tools: Sure, we don't have the perfect  
> solution for these issues. But how about dealing with the parts  
> that are utterly trivial to deal with? Like, for example, why not  
> immediately remove all the packages that have almost no further  
> dependencies, like: FFI, Speech, Nebraska, Sound, OB?

We will try to remove what can be remove easily:
	FFI, Speech, Nebraska (sound I do not know),
	and declare that the mini image.

> Those (and others; there are definitely more in the image) would be  
> steps into the right direction. And they really don't require many  
> tools, and for the lacking abstractions (if any) new ones can and  
> will be proposed. There are many practical things that can be done  
> if the goal is modularity. Alas, the current goal does not appear  
> to be modularity, or if it is, I can't see any tangible steps into  
> that direction.

We had that in mind but we focused on gathering fixes and  
improvements and slowly the modularisation.

> The classic "we have no tools" excuse ;-) Then how about finding a  
> process which doesn't require the tools. How about making use of  
> the community instead? We've got people out there, if we can get  
> them involved we might be able to get significant amounts of  
> feedback without the automatic server (which would be great, no  
> question, but I don't think that's a prerequisite).

Sure but we should have a build process.

> Personally, having used Mantis extensively over the last Squeak  
> versions I find the process, painful as it is at times, extremely  
> useful. It is almost guaranteed that if you take the time to file a  
> bug, it will be something that really matters (to you or your  
> project). Which implies that people provide pretty good  
> information, discussions etc. That in turn (at least to me) makes  
> it a very different medium than, say, mailing lists. I don't read  
> all my emails, but I *do* look at all my bug reports carefully.

I agree.
Even if mantis is reallllllllllly painful.

> Please give some detail. I'm curious in which way for example PI  
> isn't good enough or in which way 3.9 maintenance is problematic.  
> In particular it would be interesting to me if the problems  
> couldn't be solved by some more robust requirements for packages,  
> for example, no overrides etc.

At least not having overrides is really a first step.
I think that having atomic loading is another.

We should write a report on what should be improved.


>>> How disappointing. How very, very disappointing.
>> It's nice to know that are so much pro modularity... I really  
>> should read again the discussions of way-back-when. I don't recall  
>> to understood
>> this position from your postings back when people had lots of  
>> energy (3.8) for this...
>
> Then why do you think I've spent so much time trying to fix the  
> 3.3a module system or on actually getting stuff out of 3.6? Why do  
> you think I started ToolBuilder, UIManager and made the ToolSet  
> abstraction?
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>