4.1 status update / trunk feature freeze / release candidate

Folks -

In accordance with the proposed release schedule [1] I've created an
updated trunk image and associated release candidate. Also in accordance
with the schedule I am declaring a FEATURE FREEZE on the trunk.

What does that mean? It means that for the time until the release only
identified FIXES should be posted, not additional features. Helping to
get the release out of the door will reopen the trunk sooner rather than
later so please help wherever you can.

As a further consequence, I have advanced the status of the image to
BETA for indicating that we're code complete and have no pending
features. The trunk image and candidate build are available here:

   http://ftp.squeak.org/trunk/Squeak4.1-9850-beta.zip
   http://ftp.squeak.org/trunk/4.1rc1/

As always, when you make a build there are some issues that come up,
here are a two that I'd like to address:

1) How should the final release be called? Currently the naming
convention is 4.1-<update>-<tag> but that's kinda long and unreadable. I
would prefer having simply 4.1.1 which then maps to an update number
implicitly. So the relase would be called Squeak 4.1.1, the image
Squeak4.1.1.image etc.

2) Should we condense sources for every release? I've kept the 4.0
sources file for the 4.1 release, but I'm curious what people think
about always shipping an empty changes file.

Other than that, the next week has a lot of stuff scheduled. I *really*
need some help here. How you can help you ask?
* Work on making all tests pass
* Identify bugs in Mantis that need to be looked at, add them to [2]
* Resolve those bugs from Mantis (fix, close, whatever)
* Whoever can write proper english, please help with a draft 4.1 welcome
and press release
* Test, test, test. Load your favorite packages into 4.1, run its tests,
report any oddities. We have enough time to provide backwards
compatibility fixes for 3rd party packages
* Bug your VM maintainer to update their VMs to the latest so that we
have all known VM fixes on all supported platforms
* Build platform installers

References:

[1] The 4.1 release schedule:
 
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-March/147166.html
[2] The 4.1 bug master list:
     http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7480

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Installer is here: http://drop.io/7sj106x

Enjoy,
Ian.
--
http://mecenia.blogspot.com/

On 3/28/2010 7:35 PM, Ian Trudel wrote:
> Installer is here: http://drop.io/7sj106x

Thanks, Ian! I've copied it to http://ftp.squeak.org/trunk/4.1rc1/win

BTW, I noticed that the installer is 10MB total but the zip is 15MB
total. Do you know where the difference comes from? Oh, and do you
already (or intend to) create an association between .image and the vm
in the installer?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

2010/3/28 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
> On 3/28/2010 7:35 PM, Ian Trudel wrote:
>>
>> Installer is here: http://drop.io/7sj106x
>
> Thanks, Ian! I've copied it to http://ftp.squeak.org/trunk/4.1rc1/win

You're welcome. :)

> BTW, I noticed that the installer is 10MB total but the zip is 15MB total.
> Do you know where the difference comes from? Oh, and do you already (or
> intend to) create an association between .image and the vm in the installer?

NSIS integrates LZMA compression and it does outperform zip
compression on text files. Squeak4.1-9850-beta.zip is about 10Mb but
barely 6.8Mb when recompressed using 7-Zip with LZMA.

I can add the file association if you'd like to. It sounds like a good idea.

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas

Ian.
--
http://mecenia.blogspot.com/

I have taken a look to file association. It also requires admin
rights. One problem I have noticed is that the uninstaller will not be
using admin rights and won't be able to clean out properly. In the
case of file associations, it means the association is likely to
persist even once Squeak uninstalled. Perhaps, shall we consider to
require admin rights altogether?

Ian.
--
http://mecenia.blogspot.com/

On 3/28/2010 8:15 PM, Ian Trudel wrote:
> I have taken a look to file association. It also requires admin
> rights. One problem I have noticed is that the uninstaller will not be
> using admin rights and won't be able to clean out properly. In the
> case of file associations, it means the association is likely to
> persist even once Squeak uninstalled. Perhaps, shall we consider to
> require admin rights altogether?

I'm not certain. The alternative is to just leave out the file
associations. It's a tradeoff. Any opinions anyone?

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On Mar 28, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> On 3/28/2010 8:15 PM, Ian Trudel wrote:
>> I have taken a look to file association. It also requires admin
>> rights. One problem I have noticed is that the uninstaller will not be
>> using admin rights and won't be able to clean out properly. In the
>> case of file associations, it means the association is likely to
>> persist even once Squeak uninstalled. Perhaps, shall we consider to
>> require admin rights altogether?
>
> I'm not certain. The alternative is to just leave out the file associations. It's a tradeoff. Any opinions anyone?


What would happen if Squeak is uninstalled (leaving behind the file associations) and then some other software is installed that want to use those file associations?  If the new software installer happily stomps the associations, then maybe it's not such a big deal.

Thanks very much for working on the installer, Ian!

Cheers,
Josh

>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>

2010/3/28 Josh Gargus <[hidden email]>:
> What would happen if Squeak is uninstalled (leaving behind the file associations) and then some other software is installed that want to use those file associations?  If the new software installer happily stomps the associations, then maybe it's not such a big deal.

You are correct. Furthermore, I believe the previous association, if
any, will not be restored when Squeak is uninstalled. It will also
display the "open with" window when someone will double click on an
image. This is the behaviour I have on Win7. It's probably much more
relax on WinXP or earlier version.

> Thanks very much for working on the installer, Ian!

I'm glad I can make a little contribution. :)

> Cheers,
> Josh

Ian.
--
http://mecenia.blogspot.com/

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2) Should we condense sources for every release? I've kept the 4.0 sources
> file for the 4.1 release, but I'm curious what people think about always
> shipping an empty changes file.

for 4.1, given the large differences to 4.0, I'd say let's have new
sources. This doesn't have to be the case for each and every
small-step release IMHO.

> * Work on making all tests pass

Which of the failing ones depend on VM fixes?

Best,

Michael

On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 20:17 -0700, Andreas Raab wrote: FWIW, my  expectations are ....
...file associations to be setup for the user, if run unprivileged, and
for everyone if the installer were run as administrator.

... not that file associations to be undone by an uninstall, though if
they were I'd expect it to reverse whatever was done on installation.

... installation and uninstallation to require the same privilege level.

How, or if, that maps to installer capabilities I don't know.
Ross