On Feb 13, 2009, at 18:06 , Keith Hodges wrote:

>
>> Somehow I got amiable through Keiths Mail to the pharo list. He was
>> blaming the pharo crew for not caring about squeak and things/fixes
>> others do. That was exactly the reason back then for me to fix it in
>> pharo and then open a bug on mantis as well. So it turns out that the
>> integrational aspect doesn't work in either direction.
>>
> It would work fine if....
>
> SqueakMap was treated as an external package to both squeak and pharo,
> and the repo, or at least a repo is available to any contributors that
> want to improve things.

[...]

> If in the case of SqueakMap situation mentioned you "fixed it in  
> pharo"
> then that means there is likely to be a new SMBase with your  
> initials on
> it, where is it? If it is languishing in a pharo repository, then that
> simply illustrates my point. Namely, that pharo should conceptually
> treat external packages as external packages, and contributors  
> should be
> encouraged to improve such external packages for everyone. e.g. tell  
> the
> maintainer what is going on, and check your changes back in to the  
> main
> development stream... isn't it rude not to?

For version 1.0 we've planned to remove SqueakMap from the Pharo core  
and treat it as an external package.

> My complaint against pharo is that while the rest of the squeak
> community has been trying to modularize the image and treat more and
> more modules as external loadable packages. The pharo team goes back 3
> (?) years and ignores anything done in said external projects in the

As a side note, Keith, I'm slightly getting annoyed being criticized  
over again for what we do wrong in your opinion. To do it our own way  
without conflicting with the Squeak way of doing (or not doing)  
things, is why we left. I believe that we can profit from the common  
effort, but it should happen in a constructive way.

Adrian