Em 20/12/2009 17:50, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianop...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> 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? OK, Mariano! Before we engage in "who'll do it" we have to have a clear vision on the _what_ to do it! If the project participant's all agree with this, we can open an issue specific to table what should be kept from the incumbent browser[s] to the one considered to be the next thing®. I surmase correctly O2 is the one to be fully developed and we should scavenge the interesting ideas from the other available implementations (IIUC including Whisker). Then we can see if the desired features fit in the present architecture (still thinking of O2) or if we should start from a lower ground implementing all the new ideas using Glamor (for example). Once the all effort is more or less understood, we can look for ways of getting resources for it (including the funding for people working in it, or chopping the tasks in chunks small enough that via Sprints and programming parties we arrive at our objective). I think Pharo would be a nice "example" for the Smalltalk community if we can get this kind of 'disperse engineering' to work! my 0.019999.... -- Cesar Rabak _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
