I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic an

Doug Way dway at mailcan.com
Thu Nov 2 06:16:47 UTC 2006

I support Juan's proposal and Goran's comments.

On Nov 1, 2006, at 1:51 PM, J J wrote:
> I guess I also missed the part where what Juan is doing means that  
> squeak dumps EToys.  Can't it just be a different image like the  
> dev image?  I don't think that means a fork, per se. ...

Right.  It's not necessarily a fork, although it could end up being a  

With Juan's proposal, EToys would be removed from the 3.10alpha  
"basic" image which follows the update stream.  (For better or worse,  
it looks like the update stream will still be needed for the next  
release at least.)

This doesn't mean EToys will never work with the squeak-dev 3.10 and  
beyond images... Ideally, someone would create the loadable EToys  
package for 3.10 and it would be part of the 3.10 "full" image.

I'd think it wouldn't be *that* hard to make a loadable EToys package  
for 3.9... it's non-trivial, but I'd think it'd at least be no more  
difficult than the unloading work Juan has already done.  (Any  
comments on that, Juan?)  It is possible, though, that no one will do  
it.  And I certainly wouldn't expect Juan to do it, for example.

If a 3.9 EToys package is created, the 3.10 EToys package would be  
created from that, adjusting for any Morphic changes from 3.9 to  
3.10.  (Or even better, it would be ported from the latest OLPC  
version, although that would be a bigger merge.)

In any case, this sort of basic level of modularity is essential for  
the survival of the squeak-dev image into the future, and for the  
community to grow, IMHO.  This sort of disentangling has various  
other benefits such as getting us closer to working on top of Spoon.

- Doug

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list