On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 8:32 PM, <csra...@bol.com.br> wrote: > I cannot find in the archives clues for that, so I'll ask here. > > Is there a reason we keep both O2 and OB in parallel? Can't we > just get the best parts of one of the solutions and consider the > other as the "trunk" or mainstream for Pharo? > > Of course we can and I really would like that also...but..who do it ?
> -- > Cesar Rabak > > > Em 20/12/2009 06:32, Lukas Renggli < reng...@gmail.com > escreveu: > > > > I think it would be better to have ConfigurationOfRefactoring and two > > other: ConfigurationOfOB and ConfigurationOfO2, which have the former > > as a required project (and IIUC it was your first intention, right?). > > This will reduce duplication of dependencies between projects. > > O2 breaks OB, if both are loaded. I suggest that the configurations > should trigger a conflict when somebody tries to load both. > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > http://www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
