On 4/21/15, karl ramberg <karlramberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21 April 2015 at 10:39, karl ramberg <karlramberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Great.
>> > Seems we need to issue a update map before these gets pulled in by
>> updating.
>> >
>> > Can also remove Universes package ?
>> > That also needs to be done in a update map, I think
>>
>> I _think_ that back during the 4.4 release cycle we reached consensus
>> that Universes would last one more cycle. That would means its removal
>> time is now.
>>
>
> Yay

+1

>>
>> Don't forget that we need to bump the VersionNumber package version
>> when this happens (or our "version number" will decrease).
>>
>
> Ugh, I'm not sure how that is done...
>
> Karl
>
>>
>> frank
>>
>> > Karl
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On 14.04.2015, at 14:18, karl ramberg <karlramberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > We should pull these in to trunk as soon as possible so we can get
>> stuff
>> >> > tested before the release of a new image.
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you do that Levente, as you seem most familiar with the changes
>> you
>> >> > made ?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Although I am not levente I went ahead and pushed SqueakSSL and
>> WebClient
>> >> into
>> >> the trunk. Lets see how it turns out.
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >>         -Tobias
>> >>
>> >> > Karl
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > Hi Levente
>> >> >
>> >> > On 06.04.2015, at 20:43, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > It would be better for these packages too, because they would get
>> more
>> >> > > attention.
>> >> > > The SqueakSSL/WebClient changes I made in October[1] are still
>> missing
>> >> > > from the official repositories.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Levente
>> >> > >
>> >> > > [1]
>> >> > >
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2014-October/180251.html
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > I just now saw that there is more than just vm stuff.
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem with WebClient and SqueakSSL as of now is, that
>> >> > its maintenance-ship is, well, complicated. I went forth and
>> >> > pushed tiny changes to WebClient by just being somewhat on
>> >> > my own initiative[1].
>> >> >
>> >> > ===========
>> >> >
>> >> > Dear Squeak Community as a whole and dear Ron as person possibly
>> >> > best fit to make a decision on this:
>> >> >
>> >> >         Should we put the maintainer-ship of WebClient and
>> >> >         SqueakSSL into the hands of the Squeak Core Team?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ===========
>> >> >
>> >> > Best
>> >> >         -Tobias
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]: There's a saying, initiative is discipline-lessness with
>> >> > positive
>> >> > outcome
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Mon, 6 Apr 2015, Tobias Pape wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On 06.04.2015, at 18:59, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>>> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Marcel Taeumel
>> >> > >>>> <marcel.taeumel at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
>> >> > >>>>> Hey! :)
>> >> > >>>>>
>> >> > >>>>> Can we add both to the update map (somehow?) and see if it
>> >> > >>>>> works
>> >> > >>>>> out
>> >> > >>>>> during
>> >> > >>>>> the following days/weeks until the release?
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> +1
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> What is the point of moving these into the base image? Aren't
>> these
>> >> > >>> exactly the kinds of things that you would want to have
>> >> > >>> maintained
>> >> > >>> as
>> >> > >>> independent packages that can be easily loaded from SqueakMap?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> I think both these are Extremely Important (capital).
>> >> > >> WebClient as replacement for HTTPSocket (it already provides a
>> >> > >> compatibility
>> >> > >> layer; Andreas seemed to always considered WebClient to replace
>> >> > >> HTTPSocket),
>> >> > >> and SqueakSSL because you can't load anything meaningful on the
>> >> > >> web
>> >> > >> without
>> >> > >> SSL; github, twitter, most sites. And that's good.
>> >> > >> Plus we _finally_ could put the Plain Text Passwords for
>> >> > >> Monticello
>> >> > >> behind
>> >> > >> SSL…
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Best
>> >> > >>      -Tobias
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>