On May 31, 2011, at 4:27 AM, Eliot Miranda wrote: > > > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Craig Latta <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [It's] impossible to authoritatively classify anything as "dead > > code" unless there's a reference standard of what's core and what's > > not core... > > Yeah, in the meantime I define "dead" as "not run for some amount > of time". > > Surely "dead" means not used in the transitive closure of useful packages. I > don't see anyone in this thread proposing to trawl Monticello repositories > looking for the latest versions of packages and then analysing what messages > these packages send. IMO, only by doing this will you be able to define > what's used in the image. One could try and relate the messages used to the > publish date of packages to try and get some idea of the up-to-date-ness of > messages. One can perhaps attempt to make some determination of the liveness > of the package by asking the community (basing this on e.g. last time it was > downloaded creates the heisenbug of package trawling needing to download > packages.
Yes. I hope that we will be able to use a Ring based code database + metacello configuration repository for that. > Am I mad or is the set of packages out there in Monitcello repositories and > on SqueakMap what really constitutes the working set that the base image > needs to support? > > best, > Eliot > > > -C > > -- > Craig Latta > www.netjam.org/resume > +31 06 2757 7177 > + 1 415 287 3547 > > > > >
