On 2/18/07, Edgar J. De Cleene <edgardec2001 at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
>
>
>
> El 2/18/07 2:18 PM, "Pavel Krivanek" <squeak1 at continentalbrno.cz> escribió:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > for completeness' sake, here's the response by Keith Hodges who is the
> > most active release team member now:
>
> Well , he have some strong ideas what Ralph and I don't buy.
> Read carefully the mails.
>
> > less dependent on Ralph's leadership.
> I repeat have the procedure complete from December, and for have people
> happy must go back some steps.

Maybe your goals weren't clear enough. I don't know.

> I publish several tentative images and have the last for remote test several
> days.
> Load some new projects also and Fabrik, all works
>
> Here I almost was burn at the stake for cook all Test relative in a
> package. Your Etoys have 2.8 mb and inside you put several things (Test
> also)
>
> I think is possible a similar .image what MinimalMorphic with my procedure
> taking normal 3.9 , applying "top rip" of existent today packages, plus Juan
> Etoys removal.
> A more small Etoys only taking yours and Etoys reload.
> What you think ?

I think that the priority is to detach and sort tests from the EToys
package and then avoid overrides in MinimalMorphic and EToys. Then it
will be much easier to continue in safe packaging process - do top
down packaging in terms of this big package. I really see no reason
why we should redefine MinimalMorphic (I hope that I've understood you
well)

> Repeat, is a case of trust. People trust Ralph. He have the last word, and
> if some delay or "no activity" shows is perhaps he is busy and me don't wish
> do unwanted things.
>
> Or maybe we should have several 3.10, as Keith says.
> Yours view, Keith view, Ralph view, Jerome view, etc.

It doesn't make any sense. I hope we are not mad :-)

-- Pavel