I think my suggestion would be more palatable to folks concerned about tidiness:
- Strip Installer of all features that can be handled by Gofer. - Make Installer USE Gofer for those things that Gofer does (Monticello packages). - That way folks like Miguel can have only Gofer loaded, old fogies like me can have Installer+Gofer loaded. One question that came to my mind last night: What does > 1000 lines of Gofer code bring to Monticello-loading that I can't already do with just Monticello? or with a couple of facade methods added to plain MC? 2010/12/15 Janko Mivšek <[email protected]>: > Hi guys, > > Cross posted to Squeak and Pharo. > > On 14. 12. 2010 22:56, Ken G. Brown wrote: > >>> Lukas maintains Gofer >>> and there are reasons to use it: closer relationship with Pharo, >>> contemporary MC integration (Metacello). >> >> I can accept using Gofer in trunk, for things that require it like reading >> it's own scripts. >> But I don't want to see Installer go away... because of all the things >> Installer does that Gofer doesn't. > > What if someone: > > 1. adds to Gofer loading from SqueakMap and other > 2. then Lukas is kindly asked to rename it to the Installer. > > That way we will have a maintained installer with a meaningful name and > everyone will be happy. Because we really need one and only one > installer for both Squeak and Pharo. > > Best regards > Janko > > > -- > Janko Mivšek > AIDA/Web > Smalltalk Web Application Server > http://www.aidaweb.si > >
