Chris Cunnington wrote:
> I like all of that. I think what you're saying is really constructive. 
> By the time I finished reading your post, I started to think SqueakMap 
> has the possibility to be pretty exciting.

Problem is: talk is cheap, code is time.

> My only real animus here is against implementing what we've had before 
> without any modification or change. I want to see some kind of evolution 
> here and the things you're proposing sound worthwhile. 

Since I know how little time I have to spend I need to make baby steps - 
and one baby step is to make SM just *work* again.

> I think my problem is with the user interface. Three ways to get code ( 
> Thank you but I will  "Über einen Kamm scheren" - "lump together" from 
> Google Translate) on one menu is odd. It screams legacy.

Well, I think it comes down to naming. If SM was called "Package 
catalog" and MC was called "Source Code Management tool", then perhaps 
it would not be totally confusing.

> I think it comes down to this: I will not like things I don't understand 
> and which nobody justifies the existence of. I use SqueakSource every 
> day. I've been burned by SqueakMap.
> 
> 1. Include some instructions in the image regarding "how to get stuff" 
> into the image. Seems like a good short term thing to do for 4.1. We can 
> easily explain the difference between SS and SM. PU (as it was called 
> earlier - Package Universes) is ... well, see below.
> 
> 
> I like that we're moving in a constructive direction, but I don't know that written documentation is the key. It doesn't make sense to me if we're explaining weird UI design. In a way, UI design is documentation. 

Sure, but people need to understand the difference of an SCM tool and a 
package catalog. And one easy way is to tell them. :)

> 2. Possibly throw out Universes in 4.1 *iff* it does not work anymore 
> and noone can fix it. I haven't even tried it. Does it work?
> 
> 
> I'm all for that. It's a bold stroke, and I like that kind of thing. And if we have two points of entry instead of three, that sounds good to me. And if that can be done without losing the value (to some people) of the UB, then everybody wins. 
> 
> 3. Regardless of when we throw out Universes we should improve SM to 
> cover the "loss" of it. 
> 
> Sounds good.

We can create a separate thread for the PU "issue". To see if anyone 
uses it, if Lex is around, what people think etc.

> 4. Improve SqueakMap. There is a loooong list of things we could do. One 
> thing of immediate interest given this discussion is to make it "mirror" 
> SS somehow so that packages hosted on SS are searchable and installable 
> from SqueakMap Package Loader and listed on map.squeak.org <http://map.squeak.org> etc etc. We 
> could also revive the "Make release on SqueakMap"-button that used to be 
> in SS so that it can be used for *real* releases and not just for all 
> new versions. Chris? Others?
> 
> I like all of this. 
> 
> 
> I think these are really great ideas. My sole objective is to see this area of our world reformed in a way that is in keeping with all that has been accomplished in the new image. I understand how intense I've been. And I can see policial capital or goodwill that I may have had on Squeak-dev on fire all around me. But if that was the price necessary to generate the exciting reforms Goran has now proposed. I'd do it again. 

And I ask again, can you help me in doing any of this?

regards, Göran