Hi andreas


>> Absolutely. One thing that took me by surprise is the response in the Pharo world.

I did not see it so can you indicate me where you see a response?

>> Given that this is a proposal for Squeak I thought that the response would at most be "see, we told you so".

who are we to give lesson to squeakers? People can bash metacello in the past and change their mind.
This is since we managed Squeak3.9 with packages (and in fact even before - our ENVY experience back in 99) that we know that 
package without a map are not working well. 

>> Instead it appears to be ... well, I'm actually not exactly sure. Seems like a mixture of feeling threatened and NIH.

From my point of view I do not really care. If squeak use metacello good for you. We know what we want to try and we will try it.
We worked and discussed with dale since ESUG last year about that and now that 1.1 is getting out this is the right time
to pass in production mode.


> If you look at it objectively, my proposal is extremely similar to what Pharo uses, and I've explicitly mentioned that it was inspired by Pharo's use of MetacelloRepository. Outside of the community packages aspect, pretty much the only differences are:
> 1) Whether to use one configuration per package or not.
> 2) Whether configurations are preloaded in the image.
> That's about it. I really fail to see what the big hiatus is about.