danil osipchuk wrote:
>> to me "code cleanup" does not mean that any functionality is lost. 
>> only that the code is cleaned up. maybe I am too simple-minded :)
> 
> How to change the fundament of a building and in the same time to avoid 
> removing of upper floors?
> 

I don't know, I'm not into masonry, only computer science.

> To be honest I never had been an etoys user and probably should not jump 
> in here. But anyway I wonder: if etoys are already working just fine 
> right now (in efficiently forked image) why do they can not be detangled 
> from the current squeak-dev image to allow it move forward?
> 

I don't know, I did not implement eToys. I just use it, happily.

>> this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going 
>> here.    why destroy Squeak ?
> 
> Another point of view is that blocking any change going to squeak may 
> finally repell the majority of creative people from it and kill in a 
> different way (by not allowing to create a future). I'm not want to be 
> harsh (still not used to English unfortunately) but for me it if squeak 
> should die - then let it die: people may move to other projects which 
> are lacking support now (including Strongtalk).
> 

well I'm part of the creative people using Squeak. and if it gets 
dismantled, I will stop working with it. so your point works the other 
way round, too.


regards,

Stef