Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
>> I wish it were that simple (nice marketing job btw; if this were the 
>> first time I've seen this happening I'd probably buy the whole story 
>> line, hook, and sinker ;-)
> 
> Please do not try to turn it the other way. I am explaining a bit of how 
> things can work in free software community development, it has nothing 
> to do with marketing.

Marketing tries to identify mutually beneficial value propositions aka 
"win-win situations". And marketing also typically looks at "the 
brighter side of the truth" as a friend of mind phrases it. I think both 
is true for what you said which hopefully explains my remark.

>> "This plan" being to add Tweak to 3.9? Depends. For the "basic" image 
>> the answer is No. That's simply because I will not knowingly add to 
>> that 20MB whopper that is euphemistically called a "basic" image 
>> today. For a 
> 
> Squeak.org3.9 is what we have now, so thanks for your clear answer.
> At least we now know you declined the offer to help to get Tweak in 
> Squeak.org. Thanks again for this clear answer.

Quite frankly, I think you are in no position to make any such "offer". 
We are discussing potential options here, no more no less. In this 
discussion I have offered what felt like a meaningful and reasonable 
step towards your goal (contrary to you who has explicitly declined any 
help as long as Tweak isn't mainstream). If that is not enough for you, 
tough luck, because I have other commitments that require my attention 
and I won't drop those just to make you happy.

> Oh by the way installed Eclipse is 368Mb on my Linux box...

Ten billion flies can't be all wrong either, can they?

>> "full" version (which really just means that it'll be loadable via 
>> SqueakMap) that's something we can talk about. Which is not quite a 
>> yes, but thus far I haven't even looked at what it means to get Tweak 
>> into 3.9 and I am willing to re-evaluate this option.
> 
> No Andreas, we cannot play that YES-NO game. We don't have time to waste 
> resource on that sort of no answer position.

It is not a "no answer" position. It is a low-risk, low-commitment step 
that will be needed anyway. Since I don't know the result of that step I 
cannot possibly make any promises in good faith at this point and I 
would be liar if I would claim differently.

Really, if all you are looking for is simplistic answers, you should ask 
a politician, not an engineer. Politicians are really good at the simple 
answers that you are seemingly looking for. If you ask an engineer like 
myself you will get an answer that reflects the complexity of the actual 
process involved.

Cheers,
   - Andreas