Hi,
On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Jan Vrany <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 03/06/13 12:18, Marcus Denker wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Jan Vrany <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I thought so. Attached hack removes it. >>>> >>> >>> Of course a complete rewrite of the class builder is ready for integration… >>> >>> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/job/Slot/ >>> >>> So the question is if it makes sense to add this one? >> >> Hm...I'm not sure what you mean. > > I mean that we should not change ClassBuilder now if it is replaced next week. > (man power is limited). > >> Let put it this way? Any chance >> 2.0 will allow lowercase class names? well... since allowing lowercase class names does not exactly qualify as "bugfix", I would say it will not be there in 2.0. The idea is that the trunk development moves each year (with each version) and older version becomes just bugfix supported. Otherwise we will be ever-maintaining older versions, something that not even apple does (with all the capacity they have). So I would vote also "no" :) > > The problem with changing 2.0 is that all change always has side-effect > impacting > others… often in very non-expected ways. > > So I am a bit skeptical to change 2.0, especially anything in the dark places > like the class > builder. > > If it is a change that is for the good of all users, is makes sense to invest > time and effort. > But changing the class builder in 2.0 just for an experiment of one person? > I would tend to > argue to not do it. > > The current development version is another story. There we can break things, > have time to stabilize. > > Marcus
