On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Pavel Krivanek wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> the latest KernelImage based on Squeak 3.10 is here:
> http://comtalk.cz/public/pub/KernelImage/current/
> I continuously compared the image to Squeak and commented the changes.
> For more information see http://www.squeaksource.com/KernelImage.html.
>
> The approach to PharoKernel is a little bit different. There is not a
> current image that can be downloaded. Pharo is almost prepared for
> this remodularization, it only needs to finish integration of this
> issue:
> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2635
> For the description of its scope of the Kernel, the following issue is
> important:
> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2105
>
> The goal of the KernelImage/PharoKernel is to have a modular system
> with well defined packages a dependencies, not only the smallest
> system. That was the reason why I always tried to keep the binding to
> mainstream Squeak content.
>
> There are several possible approaches:
> - take the original KernelImage and adopt it for the latest Squeak. It
> should be quite easy.
> - do the similar remodularization and patches as the Pharo did. The
> package structure of Pharo and Squeak then will be very similar.
> - Pharo did a lot of important work on the cleanup of the system, it
> has wider and motivated community of developers and its goals are

Oh, really?

> subset of goals of Squeak. What about to use whole Pharo as the basic
> system for Squeak and let Pharo people to finish its modularization
> and focus on tasks important for Squeak? Give me week or two and I
> will show you that it's possible to load EToys and other Squeak
> specific stuff to Pharo...

Do you mean that the current Squeak trunk should be thrown away and Squeak 
should be based on Pharo?


Levente

>
> To Edgar: sorry, I do not have Skype.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Pavel
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi Pavel,
>>
>> Thanks for your offer! I've been talking to Juan about an approach that
>> might give us at least a feel about the size of the effort we're talking
>> about, namely to use the Cuis image and cluster all classes and methods into
>> three categories:
>> * Unchanged. Those classes and methods exist both in current Squeak trunk
>> and Cuis.
>> * Squeak-Only. Those classes and methods do only exist in Squeak.
>> * Modified. Those classes and methods are different between Cuis and Squeak.
>> The idea here is to get a feel for the size of the effort before it gets
>> into the details (i.e., it would help us to understand whether the modified
>> portions are 1% or 10% of the total size). Do you think the approach would
>> be equally applicable to your Kernel images?
>>
>> Speaking of which, I'm not entirely sure what the scope or direction for
>> these images is. Can you say a little bit about whether there's some
>> underlying theme to this work (i.e., do you have actual use cases for these
>> kernel images) or is it mostly just an attempt to make things smaller?
>>
>> Lastly, where can I find one of those kernel images these days? I'm
>> interested in seeing how different or similar the structure is, in
>> particular compared to Cuis.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/2010 1:05 AM, Pavel Krivanek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Andreas Raab<andreas.raab at gmx.de>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/20/2010 7:30 AM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/20/10 9:04 AM, "Juan Vuletich"<juan at jvuletich.org>    wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andreas and Juan would like to find a way to leverage the work done to
>>>>>> reduce Cuis for Squeak. Ideally, Squeak would become a smaller kernel,
>>>>>> about the size of Cui
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a kernel and this is the Pharo Kernel, mostly Pavel work.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about, can you elaborate? Is
>>>> there
>>>> an image to look at and learn from? So far, I found Cuis to be the best
>>>> alternative.
>>>>
>>>>> Why smart people like both you desire do all again ?
>>>>
>>>> Mostly because doing something like that requires help from the people
>>>> who
>>>> have done it before. I haven't seen a post from Pavel in two years; to me
>>>> that is a clear expression of disinterest. Contrary to which Juan isn't
>>>> only
>>>> present, but he's also ran and be elected to the Squeak board and has
>>>> repeatedly expressed his willingness to help. All other things being
>>>> equal,
>>>> that seems like a vast advantage, wouldn't you agree?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Andreas,
>>>
>>> I'm ready to help you.
>>>
>>> -- Pavel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>