I will reply because this situation is silly and keith has some good points.
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: keith <keith_hod...@yahoo.co.uk> > Date: 2009/12/16 > Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Stuff > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list > <squeak-...@lists.squeakfoundation.org> > > >> > So the question is, has ever been considered to simply build the bridge >> > between >> > communities and to use the PharoCore image as the base for Squeak? >> >> This wouldn't work for the same reasons that it wouldn't work to use a >> Squeak-trunk image as the basis for Pharo. You should propose that at >> some point just to see what kind of reaction you get ;-) >> >> Cheers, >> - Andreas > > Yes please propose it. That is an excellent idea. Lets use the PharoCore > image as the base for future Squeak releases! It would work excellently, it > might require some humility from Andreas. In my opinion it is the only > sensible way forward. > > Let me divulge a little secret here, the biggest reason that we kept the > original 3.11 development always said to be about "process" and not about the > actual release image, is that with a decent image building and testing > process in place it would then have been possible to build and test a future > squeak release pilot on top of some of the pharo-core packages. For us Pharo > was simply a pilot project moving the core forward that we could borrow the > best bits from it as appropriate. By adopting pharo in carefully integrated > pieces we would perhaps of stood a chance of keeping the community together. > > The annoying thing was that Pharo team seemed to be insisting on diverging > far more than was necessary and consistently refused to adopt any shared > values or code that would have made this approach easier, we really need as a > starting point, shared code loading tools, package management tools, and > shared testing tools at the very least. i.e. Installer, and MC1.5/6 were > developed with this in mind, and so was SUnit-improved, but the Pharo team > refused to touch either of these projects. > > The more that the squeak-core image changes (i.e. in trunk) without tracking > pharo's core packages the more diverse and impossible future integration will > become. The old 3.11 effort was about having the tools to enable packages to > be developed and tested in both Pharo and Squeak and all other forks, and > then extending this to suggest common core packages as a way forward for > everyone. > > So now that our to-be carefully planned evolution of squeak-core, using pharo > for inspiration, has been trashed by random hacking on trunk, adopting > PharoCore as a base image is probably the viable way forward for this > community to remain viable. > > You already know that I don't see the squeak community as viable, since it > eats its young. > > Sooner or later the board or someone will realize this, they will get elected > to the board, and all those of you who have been working hard on trunk will > discover that all your contributions have been wasted. Never mind eh. > > Keith > > > > > > > -- > Cédrick
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
