Well, ultimately the people using 3.9 (which I'm not) should decide 
whether to throw out OB or not. I'm just pointing out that for a 
*maintenance* release, the removal of large chunks of code where nobody 
knows what may depend on it is generally considered a complete no-no. 
These kinds of issues should be decided when the release is originally 
made (and I'll bite my tongue here not making any sarcastic comments 
about the fact that I had argued against the inclusion of OB in the 3.9 
release in the first place).

FWIW, I think Giovanni's proposal would be preferable to having an old 
version of OB in 3.9.0 and none in 3.9.1.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Lukas Renggli wrote:
> It is a very good idea.
> 
> The OB code in 3.9 is totally outdated. It is so old, that it is
> impossible to just load a new version with MC. To get the latest
> version of OB working you have to unload the old code first. I assume
> that anybody building something with OB knows how to load the latest
> version.
> 
> Lukas
> 
> On 2/15/08, Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com> wrote:
>> I agree, not a good idea for a maintenance release.
>>
>>
>>  Ken
>>
>>
>>  On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 13:46 -0800, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>  > stephane ducasse wrote:
>>  > >
>>  > > + remove OB
>>  >
>>  > Does that mean that if people write code with a dependency on OB,
>>  > publish on SqueakMap as "3.9" it will fail to work in 3.9.1? That's not
>>  > exactly my understanding of a maintenance release.
>>  >
>>  > Cheers,
>>  >    - Andreas
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>