On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com

wrote:

I've always ignored them ;)

Me too. For me, we can remove them. But I am wondering if other people find it useful...maybe newcomers? (this is why I also included pharo-users mailing list) cheers mariano

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:

...

In Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 I used to include certain files in addition to the .image and .changes. These files were: changelog.txt, installScript.st and packages.txt So...what do you think? are they (still) useful ? if true, then we should add it to hudson. If not, we just ignore it.

Thanks

Mariano

Discussion finished. Marcus, can we add in the PharoDev images a installScript.st with the code that was executed to generate the image? yes, the ConfigurationOfPharo load.... On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Miguel Cobá <miguel.coba@gmail.com> wrote:

installScript definitely yes.

changelog is useful if it is accurate and maintained else better avoid it. Packages I never found a reason for it to be in the zip. not very useful for newbies because they don't now what a package is based only in the name and for a experimented user, they can find the packages directly in the image.

So, I think that they won't be missing.

Cheers

El sáb, 12-03-2011 a las 20:13 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió:

...

In Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 I used to include certain files in addition to the .image and .changes. These files were: changelog.txt, installScript.st and packages.txt So...what do you think? are they (still) useful ? if true, then we should add it to hudson. If not, we just ignore it.

Thanks

Mariano

-- Miguel Cobá http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com