Steph, I understand how boring it may seem: - you already discussed the subject over and over - you already took decisions and now we come later with new proposals, and ask you to reconsider the work again...
As for the Preferences/Settings, Pharo choices are probably very weel thought. However, every solution will come with trade offs, and it would be good to have a rationale justifying the choices you made, and perhaps more importantly justifying why you did abandon some solutions, because some questions might be repeated in Pharo 1.2, 1.3, 2.0 ... and find different answers in different context. Note that Squeak evolutions might have influence on Pharo too, and it's part of the context... I strongly encourage you to establish your rationale on Pharo grounds - independently of Andreas proposals, put it on the Pharo wiki and let us know the URL. You also know that Squeak goals are not exactly those of Pharo w.r.t. backward compatibility, so Squeak can't just blindly replicate Pharo solutions without a rationale. The merit of Andreas proposal is to try and establish such a rationale. Without it, we're bound to repeat discussions again and again, Nicolas 2010/5/17 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>: > Elliot believe me we **really** discussed that over more than a year with > dale and a couple of others. > We pushed metacello contrary to other people that said it was crap and > bloated. > So may be we are a bit slow and not that smart but we want to give a try to > the setup we have in mind. > Now we also want to have a list of packages which constitutes pharo-core that > will be manage as a pharo-core > configuration. > > Stef > _______________________________________________ > 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
