I agree with this solution. As much as it pains me to work with OB (and I forced myself to do it for 2 weeks :)), it is stable and this issue prevails at this moment for 1.0.
Cheers, Doru On 20 Jan 2010, at 19:10, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Lienhard <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Mariano, > > > 2) Install only OB > > is a reasonable choice. We are very close to a 1.0 release and > including OB again at this point does not make sense. The risk for > unknown bugs that we needed to fix in maintenance releases of 1.0 is > too high in my opinion. > > > > Thanks Adrian. I didn't want to say it, but yes. I think like you. > WE NEED TO RELEASE 1.0 NOW!!!! and as much as stable possible. > > For new comers, I think it is even easier to have only one browser. > Having two, bring to confussion, insecurity, etc. Once the newcomer > stop to be newcomer, he will be able to install O2 by himself and > take his own opinion on both browsers. > > And come on...that's the idea of Metacello!! that each people can > load whatever they want. > > so.... +1 (ouch...I have already voted!) > > However, when we start building images for 1.1 we should consider to > add it again. > > Cheers, > Adrian > > On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > >> That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work > together in the > >> same image > >> without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of > classes > >> in the image > >> quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I > strongly suggest > >> to either use > >> OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a > reason why > >> people want to > >> switch between the two dynamically in the same image. > >> > >> > > > > We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which > ones are > > installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in > these options: > > > > 1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default. > > > > 2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can > install > > O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy. > > > > 3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in > > ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those > people who > > want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image > and wala! > > > > With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. > With 2) and > > 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image. > > > > I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 > directly in a > > dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create > a dev > > image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new > group I can > > create. > > > > What do you think ? > > > > Mariano > > _______________________________________________ > > Pharo-project mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- www.tudorgirba.com "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
