3.9 stability, etc.

It seems like a lot of people are using 3.9 already. Which raises a  
basic question, should I upgrade?

How stable is 3.9. Are there a lot of backward compatibility issues?  
Are there a lot of things that still need to be ported to 3.9, or is  
it pretty transparent?

-Rich-

And is there somewhere we can find out what packages are default now?  Like
would I need
to install the real-closures package or is that the default now?

This is quite stable. We will try to fix some bugs related to the  
condenseChanges but for normal user this should not have an impact.

Stef


On 3 sept. 06, at 09:28, Rich Warren wrote:

> It seems like a lot of people are using 3.9 already. Which raises a  
> basic question, should I upgrade?
>
> How stable is 3.9. Are there a lot of backward compatibility  
> issues? Are there a lot of things that still need to be ported to  
> 3.9, or is it pretty transparent?
>
> -Rich-
>

I've played around with 3.9 and the interface seems much nicer than  
3.8. I had some trouble loading packages--but nothing that I really  
need. So, I'm willing to make the plunge (or at least try it out).

What's the best way to move the code I've written in my 3.8 image  
over to the 3.9 image? I'm guessing I should save a new change set,  
then open that set in 3.9. Is there anything else I should do? Any  
gotchas I should watch out for?

-Rich-

On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:23 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:

use monticello :)

> What's the best way to move the code I've written in my 3.8 image  
> over to the 3.9 image? I'm guessing I should save a new change set,  
> then open that set in 3.9. Is there anything else I should do? Any  
> gotchas I should watch out for?

(just for the sake of completeness...)

in the most recent collection package of 3.9, the string comparison  
was reverted to the 3.7 behavior. this causes monticello to load the  
package extensions (*package) before the actual package, and not  
afterwards as in 3.8 (maybe in preceding versions as well, i dunno).  
while this causes no problems for most of the packages, there might  
be some around depending on this loading order. in this case, loading  
errors will occur. modifying monticello to have a fixed loading  
order, independent from string sorting (or just with clear definition  
if extensions get loaded before or after the package), would help to  
prevent such issues in the future.


Am 04.09.2006 um 15:54 schrieb stéphane ducasse:

> use monticello :)
>
>> What's the best way to move the code I've written in my 3.8 image  
>> over to the 3.9 image? I'm guessing I should save a new change  
>> set, then open that set in 3.9. Is there anything else I should  
>> do? Any gotchas I should watch out for?
>
>

Pascal Zumkehr wrote:
> in the most recent collection package of 3.9, the string comparison was
> reverted to the 3.7 behavior.

Really? Did anyone see a request/discussion/decision about this issue?
Last time this was brought up, it seemed most people were happy with the
changed sort order.

Cheers,
   - Andreas