> All 'grand' projects growing out from small ones. Which makes little
> ones as much as valuable
> as any of your 'grand' project. I'd prefer seeing 10 little projects
> popping out each month, than
> 1 grand project popping out once in 2 years.

Igor,

I think you need to think about what you are saying more carefully,  
you are arguing against yourself here.

The trunk process is a "grand project" which hasn't produced anything  
of any use for 6 months. It signs up the community for an ongoing wait  
of 12-18 months per release. It ties you in to the "grand project"  
ethos which we all said we didn't want.

My process produced a stream of useful projects popping up along the  
way at regular intervals, that is what you are saying you want isnt it?

We set the goal "We don't want an image, we want a kernel, that you  
can build distributions from." So what do you and the board do? Yep  
the opposite! You build a monolithic image using a process that can  
only build a monolithic image.

Furthermore the process I produced (and finished) with Bob, was  
designed to produce monthly or bi-monthly releases, with all fixes  
auto documented. Which is also what we wanted. The goal is to "release  
early and often", so what does the board do, yep exactly the opposite.  
A new process that will take a year to produce anything, and nothing  
will be auto-documented.

So you say you want something every month or so, but defend to the  
hilt the process which will NOT deliver it.

You had a release of Bob, in an image, loaded for you to play with in  
February (did you download it?), you had a release of Sake/Packages 18  
months ago (you told me you didn't use that either). The problem is  
that you all seem to say you want small projects popping up regularly,  
but when they pop up you dont use them. Furthermore you seem to be  
working arduously to make those small projects, which apparently you  
desperately want, irrelevant, and obsolete, when they are still  
useful, and in use today.

We want squeak to go forwards not backwards.

There was no grand project, to produce the 3.11, there was a process.  
In case you don't know, a process is a way of thinking about the  
problem, and applying yourself to achieve a defined goal. The board  
approved this goal to provide this process. The process was being  
used, and was working. It had not quite produced a result yet, but I  
was making videos showing THE PROCESS which was the deliverable of the  
3.11 effort was not an image, but the process that would enable to  
community to build future images, and that is what I was documenting  
and making videos of.

The actual deliverable of 3.11 could have been produced any time, the  
script was written 18 months ago. 60% of it was in LPF already, and we  
had plenty of users, and a downloadable image. All you had to do was  
run the script manually. Ken Brown had a go, he was convinced. But the  
deliverable was not the image it was the process, that is what the  
board approved, so having a go at me for not producing an image, is  
moving the goal posts.

The purpose of this process was to support extreme programming  
practices for all users of squeak, but showcased in the release of  
3.11. Now we are locked in to a "wait 18 months for a release process  
all over again".

I never advocated a grand release process, that's what I am  
complaining about, the dog returning to its vomit. We already decided  
that this wasn't the way forward.

Your choice to mock me, master Yoda, is hardly commensurate for a  
positive way forward.

My point I still don't think you are getting, is that while squeak is  
running on an 18 month release cycle producing a monolithic image,  
which only serves the vision of the person who built it, and processes  
are locked in to that way of thinking, it is already irrelevant, hence  
my search for something else.

Within the Smalltalk community which invented extreme programming, we  
are basically a bit of a laughing stock, since we cannot produce a  
release in 20 minutes.

Keith