Re: Incorporating removals & KCP stuff

Doug Way <[email protected]> Wed, 07 May 2003 12:38:44 -0400
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.foundation
Message-ID <[email protected]> 
> Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:57:27AM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> > > You wrote about how to make this into an update since SM isn't in the
> > > vanilla image.
> > > This seems like an interesting problem I haven't really thought about.
> >
> > I allways thought that we would simply use the changeset's that are
> > referenced by the Squeakmap-packages, put those into the update-stream
> > and then remove the SqueakMap entry: very simple, no SqueakMap needed
> > for updating via the update-stream.

That's true, we don't really need SqueakMap in order to do the removals, so
that's fine.  However, at least one of the removals is a .sar package, and SAR
is not included in the base image.  This isn't a major problem, I guess, since
the removals are still relatively simple... I'll just have to split up the
.sar file into its individual changesets.  (Or, the alternative is to install
SAR in the base image for the time being.  Wait a minute... I'm not sure we
could have a .sar file as an "update" anyway, so nevermind.)

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> Anyway, where are we on this? Is Doug doing the removals today? The
> seven that worked?

Yes, I'll do these tonight.  You mentioned something about testing them again
yourself, but either way, I'll add the removals tonight.

> PS. Maintaining the "full" image etc is not that easy until we have
> package releases - SM1.1. I would like to ask for a bit more time to try
> to get SM1.1 out the door because now finally I have time to get it
> done. I will post about SM1.1 later today I think with what it will
> include and how it works.

Right.  We've discussed that it's not currently practical to maintain a Full
image during the alpha stage, for now.  However, we will have a Full image (or
equivalent via a bootstrap) available with the 3.6 final release.

- Doug
From [email protected] Wed May 07 17:13:51 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 12398 invoked from network); 7 May 2003 17:13:51 -0000
Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.20)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 7 May 2003 17:13:51 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.97.79]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003))
 with SMTPA id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected]; Wed,
 07 May 2003 20:13:49 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 20:04:12 +0200
From: Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.5174
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
cc: Alexandre Bergel <[email protected]>
cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nathanael_Sch=E4rli?= <[email protected]>
cc: Roel Wuyts <[email protected]>
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 17:13:52 -0000

I see a couple of alternatives -
1. Doug uses the script on the swiki to get the changesets and adds the
ones I approved  to the update stream. I don't know how much more work
this is than getting them off the list, might be easier. Doug?
2. KCP/MCP adapt the "send a changeset to the mailing list" code in the
image ChangeSorter>>mailToList or something like that to send a bunch of
changes to the list, and we can run it once every time we get a bunch of
changes approved. Not much work, keeps this part of the process the same
as regular harvesting and if done as multiple attachments in one mail it
isn't much noise for the list.

What do you guys say?

Daniel

Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi guys
> 
> I'm a bit lost to know how to proceed. Our changesets are based on 3.5 
> for now and they are available on the page. I do not see the need to 
> send them in the list now.
> Daniel: noury did a pass and improved it ;)
> 
> This afternoon we will have a discussion with the others here
> 
> Stef
> 
> On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 02:19 AM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> > I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and
> > remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other removals
> > either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it
> > over with, so we can go back to work.
> >
> > Do that, I'll test vs. KCP, we load KCP, and then resume harvesting the
> > regular stuff.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> (moving this to the SqF list since we're doing the final coordination 
> >> now...)
> >>
> >> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ok, I've gone through the KCP stuff. I know we orginally decided to 
> >>> do
> >>> the removals first, but I had an urge, and this doesn't touch so many
> >>> different classes that I'm very worried about clashes. Anyway, it 
> >>> seems
> >>> as the designated reviewer for this specific project I got back from 
> >>> my
> >>> vacation before the removals were done, and I don't see much reason 
> >>> not
> >>> to merge these now, but I don't mind checking the conflicts if this
> >>> proposal isn't accepted.
> >>
> >> Okay, we need to get moving on the KCP stuff and the removals now, so 
> >> we can
> >> move on with the 3.6 plan (including the various enhancements we've 
> >> been
> >> discussing).
> >>
> >> Here's what I would suggest:  We incorporate the 10 removals first, 
> >> all in one
> >> batch as Goran and I suggested.  This would be very soon, let's say 
> >> tomorrow.
> >> Then, Daniel can check for conflicts between the approved KCP items 
> >> and the
> >> removals.  My understanding is that there should be few conflicts.
> >>
> >> Then, the adjusted KCP changes can be incorporated (after having at 
> >> least the
> >> preambles posted to the list as a sort of final review).  If changes 
> >> need to
> >> be made in a few of the removed packages to account for the KCP 
> >> changes,
> >> perhaps Daniel could inform the package owners of the required 
> >> changes.
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyway, I think doing all the removals in one batch is the way to go. 
> >>  There
> >> will be two types of problems we'll have to deal with:
> >>
> >> 1. Problems/bugs caused by the removals.  These should be relatively 
> >> minor and
> >> easy to fix, I'd think.
> >>
> >> 2. Problems/bugs/conflicts when re-loading any or all of the 10 
> >> packages.
> >> These problems will probably be more significant, but these problems 
> >> need to
> >> be pushed back to the package owners at some point anyway.  We're 
> >> moving to a
> >> model where package owners need to maintain their packages against 
> >> base image
> >> (prerequisite) changes, so we might as well start this now.  It may 
> >> well be
> >> that some packages (such as PWS) are not actively maintained and 
> >> become
> >> obsolete because no one really uses them.  If that happens, either a 
> >> more
> >> active package maintainer will have to step up, or the package could 
> >> be
> >> removed from "Squeak Official" status, which would remove it from the 
> >> public
> >> release.
> >>
> >>
> >> Before thinking about incorporating the 10 removals, I decided to do 
> >> some
> >> testing.  To remove the 10 packages, I gave Goran's removal script a 
> >> try.
> >> That appears to work.
> >>
> >> Then I decided to try re-adding the 10 packages one by one into an 
> >> image to
> >> get back to the "Full" release.  I did it in this order, with the 
> >> following
> >> results:
> >>
> >> 1. SUnit - Yes.
> >> 2. BaseImage Tests - Yes.
> >> 3. Celeste Installation - Yes.
> >> 4. Games (and GamesTests) - Yes.
> >> 5. VMMaker - No.  Not auto-installable, but trying to download it 
> >> results in a
> >> "MNU: download", even after setting the download directory.
> >> 6. MacroBenchmarks - No.  Couldn't find a MacroBenchmarks package on 
> >> SM!
> >> 7. PWS Installation - Yes.
> >> 8. Scamper - Yes.
> >> 9. Speech - No.  Installation results in a "MNU: arpabet".
> >> 10. Balloon3D - Yes.
> >>
> >> So, we need to at least fix the loading problems with the three 
> >> packages
> >> before incorporating the removals.
> >>
> >> Beyond that, ideally we'd also like to have Test packages for all 10 
> >> of these
> >> packages as well, which pass... right now only a few packages have 
> >> them.  I
> >> don't think we should hold up incorporating the removals for this, 
> >> though.
> >> But we should probably try to have them available before we move to 
> >> 3.6beta,
> >> at least.  Marcus and I can work on bugging the package owners to 
> >> create these
> >> Test packages.  All future package removal/additions will have to 
> >> have a
> >> corresponding Test package ahead of time so we don't get in this 
> >> situation
> >> again.
> >>
> >> We still need to resolve the issue of how I should load the removal 
> >> script
> >> without SqueakMap, SAR, etc., because those won't be there in the 
> >> vanilla
> >> 3.6alpha image.  Probably SAR is the only really important one... I 
> >> don't know
> >> if any require DVS.  I guess I'll just have to poke around with the 
> >> removal
> >> scripts and make them into a series of regular file-ins.  (An 
> >> alternative
> >> might be to include SAR in the base image for now.  SAR should 
> >> probably be
> >> part of the Full and Basic releases anyway.  Yes, we would end up 
> >> splitting
> >> off SAR again sometime later as we whittled down to the Minimal 
> >> image, but so
> >> what?  Same probably goes for SqueakMap.)
> >>
> >> - Doug Way
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> > _______________________________________________
> > Squeakfoundation mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Wed May 07 17:13:52 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 12413 invoked from network); 7 May 2003 17:13:51 -0000
Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.20)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 7 May 2003 17:13:51 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.97.79]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003))
 with SMTPA id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected]; Wed,
 07 May 2003 20:13:49 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 20:10:31 +0200
From: Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.5174
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 17:13:52 -0000

Maybe it's worth reconsidering having the SM package be included in the
base image. I'm of the opinion that it's a reasonable piece of bootstrap
code. This also allows to have updates of the style "get/update package
X", which will be important as soon as we start maintaining images
composed of packages that change on SM.

This is a separate (immidiately available) technique to maintain
multiple images based on packages, before we have configurations.

This might be valuable, if people are very concerned about not having
the images other than base right now. For example, if someone is really
bothered about not having the full media image right now.

A hack, but one that takes the pressure off us getting configurations to
work.

Daniel

[email protected] wrote:
> Hi Doug and all!
> 
> Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 08:19 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > 
> > > I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and
> > > remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other removals
> > > either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it
> > > over with, so we can go back to work.
> > 
> > That sounds like a plan... I will just incorporate the 7 removal 
> > packages that had add-on packages that could be loaded properly, and we 
> > can do the others as they get fixed.
> 
> Great. Perfect.
> 
> Question:
> 
> You wrote about how to make this into an update since SM isn't in the
> vanilla image.
> This seems like an interesting problem I haven't really thought about.
> 
> When removing stuff from the image using the update stream eventually we
> will cut off the branch we are sitting on. Somewhere along the way we
> need to adjust how this works.
> 
> Tricky.
> 
> regards, Göran
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Wed May 07 17:13:52 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 12418 invoked from network); 7 May 2003 17:13:52 -0000
Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.20)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 7 May 2003 17:13:52 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.97.79]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003))
 with SMTPA id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected]; Wed,
 07 May 2003 20:13:49 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 20:15:48 +0200
From: Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <[email protected]>
Cc: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.5174
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 17:13:52 -0000

Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 02:19:57AM +0200, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and
> > remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other removals
> > either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it
> > over with, so we can go back to work.
> >=20
> > Do that, I'll test vs. KCP, we load KCP, and then resume harvesting the
> > regular stuff.
> >=20
> 
> I think we need to find a harvesting-process that is more "parallel":
I agree with the problem described, and maybe the solution. Can we delay
this discussion for two months or so? we'll be much more experienced
with this and wiser about what we can or can't do.

[character pairs tricky]
Review 5 things using this method, and then I will be very flexible to
whatever you say.

Ok? 

Daniel
From [email protected] Wed May 07 17:27:19 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 24942 invoked from network); 7 May 2003 17:27:19 -0000
Received: from mailhub02-skge0.unibe.ch (HELO mailhub02.unibe.ch)
	(130.92.9.53)
	by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 7 May 2003 17:27:19 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhub02.unibe.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9ED6976406; Wed,  7 May 2003 19:27:15 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from mailhub02.unibe.ch ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mailhub02 [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with LMTP
 id 19869-01-45; Wed,  7 May 2003 19:27:15 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from asterix.unibe.ch (asterix.unibe.ch [130.92.64.4])
	by mailhub02.unibe.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1CD4176422; Wed,  7 May 2003 19:27:15 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from iam.unibe.ch (asterix [130.92.64.4])
	by asterix.unibe.ch (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h47HRDK13653;
	Wed, 7 May 2003 19:27:13 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 19:27:17 +0200
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
To: Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]>
From: Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
X-Virus-checked: by University of Berne
cc: Alexandre Bergel <[email protected]>
cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nathanael_Sch=E4rli?= <[email protected]>
cc: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
cc: Roel Wuyts <[email protected]>
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 17:27:19 -0000


On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 08:04 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> I see a couple of alternatives -
> 1. Doug uses the script on the swiki to get the changesets and adds the
> ones I approved  to the update stream. I don't know how much more work
> this is than getting them off the list, might be easier. Doug?

I think that this is the best because we avoid file manipulation.
By the way the 0011 is not buggy and plain normal.
Daniel noury went over everything and added some fixes but as new 
changesets.


> 2. KCP/MCP adapt the "send a changeset to the mailing list" code in the
> image ChangeSorter>>mailToList or something like that to send a bunch 
> of
> changes to the list, and we can run it once every time we get a bunch 
> of
> changes approved. Not much work, keeps this part of the process the 
> same
> as regular harvesting and if done as multiple attachments in one mail 
> it
> isn't much noise for the list.
>
> What do you guys say?
>
> Daniel
>
> Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi guys
>>
>> I'm a bit lost to know how to proceed. Our changesets are based on 3.5
>> for now and they are available on the page. I do not see the need to
>> send them in the list now.
>> Daniel: noury did a pass and improved it ;)
>>
>> This afternoon we will have a discussion with the others here
>>
>> Stef
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 02:19 AM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>>
>>> I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and
>>> remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other 
>>> removals
>>> either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it
>>> over with, so we can go back to work.
>>>
>>> Do that, I'll test vs. KCP, we load KCP, and then resume harvesting 
>>> the
>>> regular stuff.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (moving this to the SqF list since we're doing the final 
>>>> coordination
>>>> now...)
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I've gone through the KCP stuff. I know we orginally decided to
>>>>> do
>>>>> the removals first, but I had an urge, and this doesn't touch so 
>>>>> many
>>>>> different classes that I'm very worried about clashes. Anyway, it
>>>>> seems
>>>>> as the designated reviewer for this specific project I got back 
>>>>> from
>>>>> my
>>>>> vacation before the removals were done, and I don't see much reason
>>>>> not
>>>>> to merge these now, but I don't mind checking the conflicts if this
>>>>> proposal isn't accepted.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, we need to get moving on the KCP stuff and the removals now, 
>>>> so
>>>> we can
>>>> move on with the 3.6 plan (including the various enhancements we've
>>>> been
>>>> discussing).
>>>>
>>>> Here's what I would suggest:  We incorporate the 10 removals first,
>>>> all in one
>>>> batch as Goran and I suggested.  This would be very soon, let's say
>>>> tomorrow.
>>>> Then, Daniel can check for conflicts between the approved KCP items
>>>> and the
>>>> removals.  My understanding is that there should be few conflicts.
>>>>
>>>> Then, the adjusted KCP changes can be incorporated (after having at
>>>> least the
>>>> preambles posted to the list as a sort of final review).  If changes
>>>> need to
>>>> be made in a few of the removed packages to account for the KCP
>>>> changes,
>>>> perhaps Daniel could inform the package owners of the required
>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I think doing all the removals in one batch is the way to 
>>>> go.
>>>>  There
>>>> will be two types of problems we'll have to deal with:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Problems/bugs caused by the removals.  These should be relatively
>>>> minor and
>>>> easy to fix, I'd think.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Problems/bugs/conflicts when re-loading any or all of the 10
>>>> packages.
>>>> These problems will probably be more significant, but these problems
>>>> need to
>>>> be pushed back to the package owners at some point anyway.  We're
>>>> moving to a
>>>> model where package owners need to maintain their packages against
>>>> base image
>>>> (prerequisite) changes, so we might as well start this now.  It may
>>>> well be
>>>> that some packages (such as PWS) are not actively maintained and
>>>> become
>>>> obsolete because no one really uses them.  If that happens, either a
>>>> more
>>>> active package maintainer will have to step up, or the package could
>>>> be
>>>> removed from "Squeak Official" status, which would remove it from 
>>>> the
>>>> public
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Before thinking about incorporating the 10 removals, I decided to do
>>>> some
>>>> testing.  To remove the 10 packages, I gave Goran's removal script a
>>>> try.
>>>> That appears to work.
>>>>
>>>> Then I decided to try re-adding the 10 packages one by one into an
>>>> image to
>>>> get back to the "Full" release.  I did it in this order, with the
>>>> following
>>>> results:
>>>>
>>>> 1. SUnit - Yes.
>>>> 2. BaseImage Tests - Yes.
>>>> 3. Celeste Installation - Yes.
>>>> 4. Games (and GamesTests) - Yes.
>>>> 5. VMMaker - No.  Not auto-installable, but trying to download it
>>>> results in a
>>>> "MNU: download", even after setting the download directory.
>>>> 6. MacroBenchmarks - No.  Couldn't find a MacroBenchmarks package on
>>>> SM!
>>>> 7. PWS Installation - Yes.
>>>> 8. Scamper - Yes.
>>>> 9. Speech - No.  Installation results in a "MNU: arpabet".
>>>> 10. Balloon3D - Yes.
>>>>
>>>> So, we need to at least fix the loading problems with the three
>>>> packages
>>>> before incorporating the removals.
>>>>
>>>> Beyond that, ideally we'd also like to have Test packages for all 10
>>>> of these
>>>> packages as well, which pass... right now only a few packages have
>>>> them.  I
>>>> don't think we should hold up incorporating the removals for this,
>>>> though.
>>>> But we should probably try to have them available before we move to
>>>> 3.6beta,
>>>> at least.  Marcus and I can work on bugging the package owners to
>>>> create these
>>>> Test packages.  All future package removal/additions will have to
>>>> have a
>>>> corresponding Test package ahead of time so we don't get in this
>>>> situation
>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>> We still need to resolve the issue of how I should load the removal
>>>> script
>>>> without SqueakMap, SAR, etc., because those won't be there in the
>>>> vanilla
>>>> 3.6alpha image.  Probably SAR is the only really important one... I
>>>> don't know
>>>> if any require DVS.  I guess I'll just have to poke around with the
>>>> removal
>>>> scripts and make them into a series of regular file-ins.  (An
>>>> alternative
>>>> might be to include SAR in the base image for now.  SAR should
>>>> probably be
>>>> part of the Full and Basic releases anyway.  Yes, we would end up
>>>> splitting
>>>> off SAR again sometime later as we whittled down to the Minimal
>>>> image, but so
>>>> what?  Same probably goes for SqueakMap.)
>>>>
>>>> - Doug Way
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Squeakfoundation mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Squeakfoundation mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Squeakfoundation mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>