> yes, everybody should be thoughtful with their commits. Such tools can help
> repair slips in the process. We need them; we make should use them.

This is my core message and I think you're the only one who ever
actually got it.  Thanks Marcel.

> However, keep in mind that quality assessment of any commit can be highly
> subjective. We've seen it in the past, we'll see it in the future. If one
> Squeaker is not happy with an idea of another Squeaker, there will always be
> room for discussion to move forward in a calm way.

Right, but number of Versions per logical change is objective.  IMO,
we should keep that number as close to 1 as possible.  Note, "as
possible" implies that we won't always succeed.

> Consequently, there is no way to "fix" this challenge for all eternity. It
> will always be there. Some commits will make some Squeakers more happy than
> others. That's the history we want to record and preserve.

Agree, since those are all unique "improvements".  The case where we
can abandon, I hope you agree, is when a 5-minute old method, never
tested even once, is put into a new Version into trunk, breaks it, and
then immediately yanked out by another Version.   As far as I'm
concerned, those two Versions have no bearing on the current and
future contents of Squeak yet, there it is, "noise" in the ancestry
that ALL of us, and ALL future Squeak users, have to carry and keep
multiple copies of on disk and in RAM of every running image.

 - Chris