On 13 March 2013 00:14, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>
> On 2013-03-13, at 00:08, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12 March 2013 22:22, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-12, at 22:11, commits at source.squeak.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Name: Tests-fbs.192
>>>> Author: fbs
>>>> Time: 12 March 2013, 10:11:20.038 pm
>>>> UUID: d8f08adf-5340-44a4-b7c6-3c4e70e36c28
>>>> Ancestors: Tests-cwp.191
>>>>
>>>> * The new Etoys classes brought new dependencies on Compression and ReleaseBuilder.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. I thought adding a "*etoys" category to ReleaseBuilderSqueakland might be convenient, because then I wouldn't have to touch the ReleaseBuilder package directly. If you think that's not a good idea, please let me know.
>>
>> I don't think these are bad dependencies: I consider Etoys to be
>> "application level" for want of a better term. Things depending on
>> Etoys I'd consider a problem.
>
> Okay.
>
>> Maybe ReleaseBuilderSqueakland should move to a new package,
>> SmallLand-ReleaseBuilder? There are a few other Squeakland things,
>> like Preferences class >> #smallLandBigFonts and friends. Those could
>> go in a new package called SmallLand-Preferences.
>
>
> Squeakland ~= SmallLand.

OK. So there are a few other SmallLand things like Preferences class
>> #smallLandBigFonts that could go into a new package called
SmallLand-Preferences :)

> None of the SmallLand stuff is in the Etoys image.

So Etoys have already ripped out the SmallLand stuff? OK, that means
they're prime candidates for de-trunking (as per our previously
discussed approach for a stripped core that has stuff loaded in by
CI).

frank

> I though about making ReleaseBuilderEtoys, but then it felt awkward not to have the various release builders next to each other. OTOH, we should weed out the unused builders anyway.
>
> - Bert -