[squeak-dev] Re: Nuking OldSocket,
OldSimpleClientSocket and HTTPSocket
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Fri Jun 18 02:40:59 UTC 2010
On 6/16/2010 9:14 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> Seems like a logical move, as to me.
> This however makes WebClient to be a core part of image, since many
> facilities, like MC using
> http to connect with outer world.
> I am not opposed to it, just have one question: how do you think it
> should be maintained?
> a) as an integral part of squeak-trunk
> b) as a separate package
There's a difference between maintenance and development. The package
should be "maintained" in trunk if included in trunk. That means that
fixes that are required to keep it working are applied to it regardless
of the upstream situation.
The package should be "developed" separately though. That means I'll be
adding new features and merge other changes in its own repository. When
a new version is good and ready it can be merged into the trunk as
More information about the Squeak-dev