> On 18.02.2016, at 11:18, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 18.02.2016, at 09:30, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I guess it has been nearly two years since I did that project. Time
>>> flies.
>>> 
>>> We discussed it on the list in thread "A UTC based implementation of
>>> DateAndTime":
>>> 
>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2014-May/178325.html
>>> 
>>> But I'm not asking you to review that project, I just wanted to suggest
>>> giving Chronology its own package so that it would be possible to do
>>> things like this. For my purposes, I can always use a SAR. But it would
>>> be
>>> a lot nicer to be able to use Monticello.
>> 
>> Why wouldn’t it work to submit a new Kernel package to inbox? Migration
>> issue?
>> 
> 
> Yes, migration issues. The updates have to be done in steps, with old
> instances becomed into new at two points in the update process (in package
> preambles or postscripts). I can make it work at any given point, but a
> month later Kernel will have progressed, and I have to start over again.
> 
> Dave

Okay. If this is a chance to get more sane date/time handling, I’m all for it :)

- Bert -



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4207 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20160218/f5694f3d/smime.bin