[squeak-dev] The Trunk: Morphic-cmm.1484.mcz
David T. Lewis
lewis at mail.msen.com
Sat Apr 6 00:27:02 UTC 2019
I do not agree that the temporary solution discussed below is acceptable.
Perhaps it is best if I just state exactly what I think should be done:
1) Revert Morphic-cmm.1484. Do this by publishing Morphic-XXX.1485
to roll back the changes.
2) Put the original two doIt methods back into the Do menu. Do
this by publishing System-XXX.1062 to add the two entries back
into the common request string, or just revert back to the prior
My rationale is based on the following:
1) The menu items do not belong in Tools, as previously explained.
2) The entries in the Do menu were added to support university
students using Squeak for the first time. This is important.
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 03:48:48PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Marcel, we had a good discussion in the other thread (The Inbox:
> System-cmm.1059.mcz) which led to this temporary solution acceptable
> with at least Jakob and I.
> > The Tools menu is *not* about installing tools but starting them.
> I was under the assumption Metacello has a browser and intend for that
> menu item to open a Metacello browser after the #ensureMetacello.
> That preserves what Jakob wanted while one-upping the IDE
> functionality we have today.
> > Also, the "Do" menu is *not* for newcomers but for somewhat experienced programmers that are able to write and use small scripts to optimize the own workflow.
> Rather than disagree about what it is, perhaps we can agree that it
> _isn't_ a place for configuration within release image. These tools
> deserve a better place than the Do menu, and Squeak deserves to have
> one unified way to load anything. This takes it from three to two.
> > Just look at what is already in the Tools or Do menu and you can easily see these inherent characteristics. Please try to explain your decisions with more details. What is your perspective on the Tools menu?
> My perspective is that SCM "tools" like Simple and Dual Change sorter,
> Monticello and Monticello Configurations are available under the Tools
> menu. It therefore makes sense to me that the next-level SCM tool
> built on top of Monticello would be right there, too. Does Metacello
> have a browser at all, or will it?
> > For newcomers, they can evaluate a snippet in the workspace that includes installing such infrastructure. Just copy-and-paste from a readme.md or similar. Quite simple.
> Agreed, and I would even store such snippets in SqueakMap.
> because then I could add additional entries that contained whatever is
> in the README's, and then, instead of coming back from getting coffee
> to ONLY have Metacello loaded, I could have _everything_ loaded. But
> that's not my business except to the extent I want Squeak release
> images to have the only the right tools in only the right places, so
> its not too confusing.
> > In the long term, we should find ways to ship such infrastructure in releases without spoiling the (development) trunk.
> I hope you mean as dynamically-loadable modules. The release images
> are too big, IMO, we need to eventually try to get some things out
> (Etoys) so we can make room to bring more appropriate (core) stuff in.
> > Best,
> > Marcel
More information about the Squeak-dev