Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com> writes:
> If this is true, can I say "What is going on?".  This is not directed
> specifically at you Damien; but is this community further splintering?
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that I'm nearly oblivious about the Universes
> concept.  But it would disturb me to find that active development is
> going on that is meant to be public but existing SqueakMap entries are
> not being updated to reflect it.  If this is occurring, why?

Sometimes nobody does the work of putting the entry into the catalog.
Sometimes the package author doesn't do it, and when that happens,
AFAIK nobody is following behind them to update SqueakMap entries.

It is has always been like this, for both SqueakMap and Package
Universes.  Catologing everything is a goal that can never be
perfectly achieved.  Having multiple catalogs simply means it more
obvious, because sometimes one or the other catalog is more current
for some project.

If you want to see SqueakMap be more current, then someone has to do
the work.  Here are some ideas about how that could be arranged:

1. Have a catalog editor who mimicks my and Damien's role with the
   package universes.  This person would peruse the database and
   update entries that have fallen out of date.  This work takes a lot
   of time, but on the nice side you get the gratification of perusing
   a list of cool Squeak software that is out there.

2. Have automatic copying from universes entries to SqueakMap entries.
   It is a little tedious right now to post to package universes and
   then post the same information to SqueakMap.
  

3. Stop listing individual versions on SqueakMap, so that it is not so
   hard to keep up to date.


It all comes down to what people volunteer to do.


Lex