On 20 Jan 2010, at 19:10, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Lienhard <
adi@netstyle.ch>
> wrote:
> Hi Mariano,
>
> > 2) Install only OB
>
> is a reasonable choice. We are very close to a 1.0 release and
> including OB again at this point does not make sense. The risk for
> unknown bugs that we needed to fix in maintenance releases of 1.0 is
> too high in my opinion.
>
>
>
> Thanks Adrian. I didn't want to say it, but yes. I think like you.
> WE NEED TO RELEASE 1.0 NOW!!!! �and as much as stable possible.
>
> For new comers, I think it is even easier to have only one browser.
> Having two, bring to confussion, insecurity, etc. Once the newcomer
> stop to be newcomer, he will be able to install O2 by himself and
> take his own opinion on both browsers.
>
> And come on...that's the idea of Metacello!! �that each people can
> load whatever they want.
>
> so.... +1 (ouch...I have already voted!)
>
> However, when we start building images for 1.1 we should consider to
> add it again.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
> On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
> >> That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work
> together in the
> >> same image
> >> without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of
> classes
> >> in the image
> >> quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I
> strongly suggest
> >> to either use
> >> OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a
> reason why
> >> people want to
> >> switch between the two dynamically in the same image.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which
> ones are
> > installed. Both ? only one ? �The solution I like most, is in
> these options:
> >
> > 1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default.
> >
> > 2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can
> install
> > O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy.
> >
> > 3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in
> > ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those
> people who
> > want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image
> and wala!
> >
> > With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled.
> With 2) and
> > 3) �you will have also O2 but bigger image.
> >
> > I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2
> directly in a
> > dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create
> a dev
> > image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new
> group I can
> > create.
> >
> > What do you think ?
> >
> > Mariano
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pharo-project mailing list
> >
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> >
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
>
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
>
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
>
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
>
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project