[Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff

[Daniel Vainsencher]

I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and
remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other removals
either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it
over with, so we can go back to work.

Do that, I'll test vs. KCP, we load KCP, and then resume harvesting the
regular stuff.

Daniel

Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> 
> (moving this to the SqF list since we're doing the final coordination now...)
> 
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, I've gone through the KCP stuff. I know we orginally decided to do
> > the removals first, but I had an urge, and this doesn't touch so many
> > different classes that I'm very worried about clashes. Anyway, it seems
> > as the designated reviewer for this specific project I got back from my
> > vacation before the removals were done, and I don't see much reason not
> > to merge these now, but I don't mind checking the conflicts if this
> > proposal isn't accepted.
> 
> Okay, we need to get moving on the KCP stuff and the removals now, so we can
> move on with the 3.6 plan (including the various enhancements we've been
> discussing).
> 
> Here's what I would suggest:  We incorporate the 10 removals first, all in one
> batch as Goran and I suggested.  This would be very soon, let's say tomorrow. 
> Then, Daniel can check for conflicts between the approved KCP items and the
> removals.  My understanding is that there should be few conflicts.
> 
> Then, the adjusted KCP changes can be incorporated (after having at least the
> preambles posted to the list as a sort of final review).  If changes need to
> be made in a few of the removed packages to account for the KCP changes,
> perhaps Daniel could inform the package owners of the required changes.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I think doing all the removals in one batch is the way to go.  There
> will be two types of problems we'll have to deal with:
> 
> 1. Problems/bugs caused by the removals.  These should be relatively minor and
> easy to fix, I'd think.
> 
> 2. Problems/bugs/conflicts when re-loading any or all of the 10 packages. 
> These problems will probably be more significant, but these problems need to
> be pushed back to the package owners at some point anyway.  We're moving to a
> model where package owners need to maintain their packages against base image
> (prerequisite) changes, so we might as well start this now.  It may well be
> that some packages (such as PWS) are not actively maintained and become
> obsolete because no one really uses them.  If that happens, either a more
> active package maintainer will have to step up, or the package could be
> removed from "Squeak Official" status, which would remove it from the public
> release.
> 
> 
> Before thinking about incorporating the 10 removals, I decided to do some
> testing.  To remove the 10 packages, I gave Goran's removal script a try. 
> That appears to work.
> 
> Then I decided to try re-adding the 10 packages one by one into an image to
> get back to the "Full" release.  I did it in this order, with the following
> results:
> 
> 1. SUnit - Yes.
> 2. BaseImage Tests - Yes.
> 3. Celeste Installation - Yes.
> 4. Games (and GamesTests) - Yes.
> 5. VMMaker - No.  Not auto-installable, but trying to download it results in a
> "MNU: download", even after setting the download directory.
> 6. MacroBenchmarks - No.  Couldn't find a MacroBenchmarks package on SM!
> 7. PWS Installation - Yes.
> 8. Scamper - Yes.
> 9. Speech - No.  Installation results in a "MNU: arpabet".
> 10. Balloon3D - Yes.
> 
> So, we need to at least fix the loading problems with the three packages
> before incorporating the removals.
> 
> Beyond that, ideally we'd also like to have Test packages for all 10 of these
> packages as well, which pass... right now only a few packages have them.  I
> don't think we should hold up incorporating the removals for this, though. 
> But we should probably try to have them available before we move to 3.6beta,
> at least.  Marcus and I can work on bugging the package owners to create these
> Test packages.  All future package removal/additions will have to have a
> corresponding Test package ahead of time so we don't get in this situation
> again.
> 
> We still need to resolve the issue of how I should load the removal script
> without SqueakMap, SAR, etc., because those won't be there in the vanilla
> 3.6alpha image.  Probably SAR is the only really important one... I don't know
> if any require DVS.  I guess I'll just have to poke around with the removal
> scripts and make them into a series of regular file-ins.  (An alternative
> might be to include SAR in the base image for now.  SAR should probably be
> part of the Full and Basic releases anyway.  Yes, we would end up splitting
> off SAR again sometime later as we whittled down to the Minimal image, but so
> what?  Same probably goes for SqueakMap.)
> 
> - Doug Way
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation