Hi Miguel -

Having packages for individual classes with 13 methods total is 
pointless. The granularity simply makes no sense. Plus, Generators are 
core facilities in my understanding and consequently belong to the other 
core stream and collection classes.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote:
> El sáb, 13-02-2010 a las 00:00 +0000, commits at source.squeak.org
> escribió:
>> Andreas Raab uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Trunk:
>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Collections-ar.307.mcz
>>
>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>
>> Name: Collections-ar.307
>> Author: ar
>> Time: 13 February 2010, 3:37:40.191 pm
>> UUID: 310c7f68-38f8-334c-b7bd-89b28955a4ff
>> Ancestors: Collections-nice.306
>>
>> Merge class Generator from http://source.lukas-renggli.ch/continuations/Generator-ar.5.mcz
> 
> <rant>
> 
> What?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Where was that merging discussed?
> 
> How are subsequent improvements to the Generator code made in squeak
> being contributed back to the original repository?
> 
> Why are this decisions being constantly made?
> 
> This attitude doesn't build to the Squeak supposed new way to do things.
> Why must everything being part of a monolithic squeak image. Why isn't
> just a package loaded by monticello and the reference to the original
> repository maintained and *respected* in the monticello metadata?
> 
> This very one-man squeak isn't very encouraging of the long term promise
> of wider collaboration between developers of squeak derived forks.
> 
> </rant>
>