I don't know how well tested/stable could be the closure change (expecially with third party packages as seaside, Magma or other DB backend) but if unsure it may be wise to keep it for a latter release, people may want first stability for a 1.0 to start productivity project with.
Hilaire 2009/5/11 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> > >>> > > Hi guys > > Here are the discussions we forgot to get on the list :) > > > >> I was thinking that I would not do the license cleaning for 1.0 > > > > Yes, I agree. We can do this in 1.1, which can follow shortly after > > 1.0. Any objections from Marcus, Mike? > > > > What is the status of "Main EToys removal, reorganize > > MorphicExtras-"? Do you plan to do more for 1.0? > > > > Apart from that we have left on our list ( > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/Milestones > > ): > > > > - default in-image font(s) > > - Package management system with stable and unstable distributions > > - Remove SqueakMap and Installer from core > > > > - All tests green > > - Clean up package and class category organization > > - Pharo one-click image (including developer tools, GettingStarted > > information, screenshots, ...) > > - New sources file > > > > Are we going to integrate the new preference system/browser in 1.0? > > > >> Now we are waiting for eliot closures changes. > > > > What kind of changes are theses? Did he say something about when > > they will be ready? > > Stef > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- http://blog.ofset.org/hilaire
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
