On July 2, 2009, Colin Putney wrote:
> On 2-Jul-09, at 2:49 PM, Ramon Leon wrote:
> > Exactly the point, Etoys already forked.  Stop holding onto an old
> > rotting version in Squeak that isn't used, take it out, it doesn't
> > belong there. People who want eToys have their fork where it is
> > maintained.
>
> I think this is one of the key issues in the wider Squeak community
> right now, made all the more difficult because the Etoys team has been
> completely silent on the issue. It's clear that Etoys can be excised
> from Squeak - it's been done a few times already. It's much more
> difficult to separate out a working Etoys package that can be loaded
> into a base image, particularly since the people that would be best
> able to do that are busy with other things. But even if we put in the
> effort and managed to create a loadable Etoys package, it's not clear
> that it would ever get used.
>
> So how about it, Etoys developers? Are you at all interested in
> synchronizing with Squeak at some point in the future? If so, how do
> you imagine it could be accomplished? Is there value in the Etoys code
> that's part of Squeak 3.10? Would you be interested in having a
> cleanly defined Etoys package?
>
> I'm not asking for promises, here, just opinions. 

Colin,

Thanks for taking a fresh look at this. My Etoys/Squeak synchronization 
approaches are, from the "least desirable" to the "most desirable":

#1. Remove Etoys from Squeak, as some suggested:
	- Cons and Questions: Where is the boundary between Morphic and Etoys? Does 
it mean Morphic removal as well? What does it mean for Squeak in education?
	- Pros: None for me. I voted for board individuals who I assumed would not 
support this.

#2. Do nothing

#3. Achieve ability to Manage Etoys+Morphic as single Monticello project. 
Unload existing Morphic+Etoys version from Squeak, and replace it with the one 
in Etoys 4.0 image
	- Cons: Boundary between Morphic and Etoys remains undefined. Would be nice, 
but it may be impossible given the time we have.
	- Pros: Refresh of Etoys (and some Morphic elements) from the work made for 
OLPC in the last 2 years. This was a significant investment!

#4. Define Boundariies between Morphic and Etoys. Achieve ability to Manage 
Morphic as one Monticello project and Etoys as a separate Monticello project. 
Unload existing Morphic+Etoys version from Squeak, and replace at least  Etoys 
from the Etoys 4.0 image
	- Cons: None for me. Except we may not have enough time to achieve this...
	- Pros: Refresh of Etoys (and some Morphic elements) from the work made for 
OLPC in the last 2 years. This was a significant investment! Ability to manage 
Morphic and Etoys separately would unlock much potential (e.g. replace Morphic 
with Morphic2 and keep Etoys functional on top of Morphic2)

I agree with what Bert suggested earlier, 3 is the only practical approach to 
move Squeak with Etoys forward, without  keeping a fork...

Having said that, I likely do not have the time nor skills to achieve 3. I 
would, however, find time to help...

Milan

> Even something vague
> like "Syncronizing would be nice, but we have other priorities" or
> "We're planning to sync, but we've got a deadline just now, please
> bear with us" would make this debate much more productive.
>
> Colin