2008/12/8 stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse at free.fr>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Off Topic:  Looks like there is debate stirring among the Ruby community
>> on whether to fork Ruby to experiment with parallelization, etc.  Sounds
>> awfully familiar.
>
>
> But forking is not the end, this is the start of something. Just have a look
> at what we are doing no MVC, no etoy, a lot of fixes, a lot of tests,
> TTF,.....
>

I'd like to empasize this:
- Pharo has the clearly established nearly-achievable goals (good or
bad - depends on people's preferences)
- does Squeak has the same clearly established nearly-achievable goals?

If yes, then why they not on squeak.org, but on
(http://installer.pbwiki.com/311) , and also, why there is still
people, like Edgar constantly attacking them, showing that there is no
consensus about future of squeak?

I think, its important to define clearly, that EVERYONE should
understand what is the current squeak goals, so no more discussions
about them is needed. A clearly defined tasks is half of success.
Only when we achive some milestone(s), harvest them and evaluate them
- then we should consider about next steps. Right?
But what i see, is the endless arguing about what is best for squeak
with little consensus and therefore acceptance of current tasks &
goals for release team.
I hardly beleive that such atmosphere (constant negative pressure)
helps developers, raising enthusiasm and will to contribute to squeak.

>>
>> http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2008/12/forking-rubymy-rubyconf-keynote-is-now-up.html
>>
>> On Topic:  A Google search for "squeak roadmap 3.11" turns up no
>> applicable results.  Is there a formal roadmap?  I am most curious about
>> what will happen to 3.10 when 3.11 is released.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> TimJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.