>
> Current status is that squeak is still a toy for researchers. If some
> kind of organization doesn't emerge to deal with less attractive
> aspects of software life-cycle management, it will hard to find
> resources to ensure its future
We are working on it. Some of us understand these things, but it takes a
while to put all of the pieces together. Ask around and you will find
people to be generally helpful.

You may find that the answers are already there. The base image you
started with is over a year old.  Jerome hints that the bug might be
caused by a buggy override. If it is then that bug is part of
Monticello, not the image. Monticello is a loadable package, and you are
able to load a more modern version with the bug fixed.

Monticello1.5 has been available for over a year, and this had "fixing
buggy overrides" as one of its first priorities.

Also I think you would be better off building your image with an
Installer script, this is more controlled and is what some pro's do See:
http://installer.pbwiki.com/Installer

The whole issue with 3.10.2 needing a little extra for successful image
building with Installer was the driving force behind the development of
MC1.5 and LevelPlayingField.

You can load this via "LevelPlayingField" on
http://installer.pbwiki.com/LevelPlayingField  How many of these Non-Toy
environments you refer to actively support 4 versions back!
LevelPlayingField does.

Jerome wrote:
> And there were struggles with the method of image maintanence which had shifted at 3.9.  Most people will agree that using MC to maintain an image was a problematic choice. My take is that MC is an out of sequence tool. Requiring decisions about packaging to be made too early in the process of writing methods.
> And patching bugs often cut accross packages. Add that to the fact that MC does not scale well. (Longer and longer times are taken to load larger and larger packages.) And Edgar's time was spent like yours. Learning how to make mistakes and then how to recover from them.
>   
I will write about the 3.11 process in a following email.

Keith