This leads us to the discussion of building different 'distributions'
or releases which we had many times in the past.

This time the situation is substantially different as we now have a
continuous integration server which allows to do this.

So this might be a good opportunity to start building another
distribution/release with what Frank proposes. So besides the current
one at http://www.squeakci.org/job/ReleaseSqueakTrunk/ we would have a
 "developer's release' with additional packages....

--Hannes


On 1/25/13, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 January 2013 18:34, Ken G. Brown <kbrown at mac.com> wrote:
>> My two cents is that the profiler should be an external package that is
>> brought into a minimal core at build time if desired. Now us the time to
>> start doing that sort of thing otherwise it will be stuck in the base
>> image
>> and no one will know how to get it out.. The other packages as well of
>> course, whether at build time for a release or as a later customization
>> for
>> individual users.
>
> Well, it is already an external package. The argument would be "it
> can't get entangled with the base image if it stays that way". Which
> is fair enough.
>
> It _is_ a critical dev tool, and (a) devs can load it into their own
> custom images and (b) we have a release script that can take the clean
> fully updated image from CI and load it in as part of the
> ReleaseSqueakTrunk job. Installer _might_ need a bit of love to do
> this; I don't recall off-hand.
>
> frank
>
>> Ken,
>> from my iPhone
>>
>> On 2013-01-25, at 11:22, Jeff Gonis <jeff.gonis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My quick two cents is that I agree wholeheartedly with Chris.  There is
>> tons
>> of stuff in Morphic like Nebraska, Etoys and things like MVC and
>> Universes
>> that could be made Squeakmap packages before something like the profiler.
>> These would also seem to give a far greater savings in terms of class
>> count
>> and LOC, than the comparatively small profiler.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ahem.  Perhaps before we start slashing and cutting basic tools like
>>> the profiler, we should articulate a coherent description of our
>>> vision for a reduced image, what's in it, and what audience it would
>>> target.
>>>
>>> The profiler is an essential development tool, so that would seem to
>>> cut developers from the target audience.  Whatever reason you want to
>>> cut it may be that you'd also like to cut the Process browser too -- I
>>> don't know without knowing what your goals are.  Like everyone else I
>>> want a smaller image, but with "small" it should be more like a
>>> neutron star is to a red-giant -- *dense* with functionality and
>>> applicability.  Until we can get to a truly "minimal" image (1MB) our
>>> cutting should be toward the goal of something Small and powerful, not
>>> small and useless.  :)
>>>
>>> I suggest before we cut basic development tools we cut "app" type
>>> stuff like... "telemorphic" and
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:04 PM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On 24-01-2013, at 8:08 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> Chris, might I lean on you a bit to add a SqueakMap entry for the
>>> >>> profiler?
>>> >>
>>> >> Is this not something we should just put straight into the base
>>> >> image?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I'd say no; and the existing one ought to be removed as well. Cut,
>>> > slash, trim.
>>> >
>>> > tim
>>> > --
>>> > tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>>> > "How many Kzin does it take to change a lightbulb?" "None. You can
>>> > scream and leap in the dark."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>