[Squeak 4.0] Last Call
Locked
12
12
 
|
Does anyone have any objections to Squeak 4.0 RC3? If so, now is your
time to be heard. If I don't hear anything else, I'll be calling RC3 "Gold Master" and shipping it tonight or tomorrow. If you haven't tested it out, please do, and let me know if there's anything that blocks relicense, entrance into the SFC, or irrevocably prevents deploying changes in from Trunk. Thanks folks. -- Casey Ransberger |
|
|
> Does anyone have any objections to Squeak 4.0 RC3? If so, now is your
> time to be heard. If I don't hear anything else, I'll be calling RC3 > "Gold Master" and shipping it tonight or tomorrow. > > If you haven't tested it out, please do, and let me know if there's > anything that blocks relicense, entrance into the SFC, or irrevocably > prevents deploying changes in from Trunk. > > Thanks folks. > > -- > Casey Ransberger > Hi Casey, I don't know if this is important at all, but the "Welcome to..." window has a description to the license that doesn't mention the "License" window. Besides, in "Welcome to..." it says (c) Apple and Disney, and in "License" it says (c) The Squeak Community, Xerox, Apple. It would be good not to repeat this stuff, and if it is repeated, it should match. Besides, it contains SystemDictionary>>#copytight and Utilities>>#copyrightNotice that also don't match. (BTW, I said this about 2 weeks ago). This is not a show stopper, but the Mac VM is not updated to latest VMMaker and doesn't pass the BitBlt tests. Well, the failing tests are not in the 4.0 image, but the BitBlt bugs are in the bundled Mac VM anyway. Cheers, Juan Vuletich |
|
|
As I understand it, parts of the image are indeed under different
copyrights. As hard as it is to grok, copyright and license, it would seem, are separate issues. I Am Not A Lawyer. If the SFC lawyers come back asking us to revise this part, I'll do it. I used the Mac VM that John recommended. Not sure about the BitBlt tests. Isn't that a known issue? I thought I saw a thread about that. Seems like something that should be fixable after 4.0. 4.0 roughly equals 3.10.2... On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:56 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Does anyone have any objections to Squeak 4.0 RC3? If so, now is your >> time to be heard. If I don't hear anything else, I'll be calling RC3 >> "Gold Master" and shipping it tonight or tomorrow. >> >> If you haven't tested it out, please do, and let me know if there's >> anything that blocks relicense, entrance into the SFC, or irrevocably >> prevents deploying changes in from Trunk. >> >> Thanks folks. >> >> -- >> Casey Ransberger >> > > Hi Casey, > > I don't know if this is important at all, but the "Welcome to..." window > has a description to the license that doesn't mention the "License" > window. Besides, in "Welcome to..." it says (c) Apple and Disney, and in > "License" it says (c) The Squeak Community, Xerox, Apple. It would be good > not to repeat this stuff, and if it is repeated, it should match. > > Besides, it contains SystemDictionary>>#copytight and > Utilities>>#copyrightNotice that also don't match. (BTW, I said this about > 2 weeks ago). > > This is not a show stopper, but the Mac VM is not updated to latest > VMMaker and doesn't pass the BitBlt tests. Well, the failing tests are not > in the 4.0 image, but the BitBlt bugs are in the bundled Mac VM anyway. > > Cheers, > Juan Vuletich > > -- Casey Ransberger |
|
|
Ok, tomorrow I'll look at pushing a 4.2.3 Vm that contains the lurking bitblt fixes.
However someone needs to confirm then they exist in all the VM that become the basis for 4.0 On 2010-03-13, at 7:15 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: > As I understand it, parts of the image are indeed under different > copyrights. As hard as it is to grok, copyright and license, it would > seem, are separate issues. I Am Not A Lawyer. If the SFC lawyers come > back asking us to revise this part, I'll do it. > > I used the Mac VM that John recommended. Not sure about the BitBlt > tests. Isn't that a known issue? I thought I saw a thread about that. > Seems like something that should be fixable after 4.0. 4.0 roughly > equals 3.10.2... -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com =========================================================================== |
|
|
I don't see why those VM fixes would be necessary if the few known improvement issues with the 3.10.2 image are not.
I think both should be done myself but others here are saying not. So it seems to me, neither or both. Ken G. Brown At 9:20 PM -0800 3/13/10, John M McIntosh apparently wrote: >Ok, tomorrow I'll look at pushing a 4.2.3 Vm that contains the lurking bitblt fixes. >However someone needs to confirm then they exist in all the VM that become the basis for 4.0 > > >On 2010-03-13, at 7:15 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: > >> As I understand it, parts of the image are indeed under different >> copyrights. As hard as it is to grok, copyright and license, it would >> seem, are separate issues. I Am Not A Lawyer. If the SFC lawyers come >> back asking us to revise this part, I'll do it. >> >> I used the Mac VM that John recommended. Not sure about the BitBlt >> tests. Isn't that a known issue? I thought I saw a thread about that. >> Seems like something that should be fixable after 4.0. 4.0 roughly >> equals 3.10.2... > >-- >=========================================================================== >John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> Twitter: squeaker68882 >Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com >=========================================================================== |
|
|
In reply to this post by johnmci
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, John M McIntosh wrote:
> Ok, tomorrow I'll look at pushing a 4.2.3 Vm that contains the lurking bitblt fixes. > However someone needs to confirm then they exist in all the VM that become the basis for 4.0 The windows vm has them, the unix vm doesn't, but we need a new unix vm anyway, because the last release isn't gnuified. Levente > > > On 2010-03-13, at 7:15 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: > >> As I understand it, parts of the image are indeed under different >> copyrights. As hard as it is to grok, copyright and license, it would >> seem, are separate issues. I Am Not A Lawyer. If the SFC lawyers come >> back asking us to revise this part, I'll do it. >> >> I used the Mac VM that John recommended. Not sure about the BitBlt >> tests. Isn't that a known issue? I thought I saw a thread about that. >> Seems like something that should be fixable after 4.0. 4.0 roughly >> equals 3.10.2... > > -- > =========================================================================== > John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> Twitter: squeaker68882 > Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com > =========================================================================== > > > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> I don't see why those VM fixes would be necessary if the few known improvement issues with the 3.10.2 image are not. > > I think both should be done myself but others here are saying not. > So it seems to me, neither or both. I'm sure you know it Ken, but to make it 100% clear: only the source code in the image/sources file is frozen for 4.0. So no, those fixes won't get into 4.0. But we are free to ship 4.0 with the latest vm. This has the advantage that when people update to 4.1, they won't have to download a new vm, just the image, because the vm packed with 4.0 will just work fine. Levente > > Ken G. Brown > > At 9:20 PM -0800 3/13/10, John M McIntosh apparently wrote: >> Ok, tomorrow I'll look at pushing a 4.2.3 Vm that contains the lurking bitblt fixes. >> However someone needs to confirm then they exist in all the VM that become the basis for 4.0 >> >> >> On 2010-03-13, at 7:15 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: >> >>> As I understand it, parts of the image are indeed under different >>> copyrights. As hard as it is to grok, copyright and license, it would >>> seem, are separate issues. I Am Not A Lawyer. If the SFC lawyers come >>> back asking us to revise this part, I'll do it. >>> >>> I used the Mac VM that John recommended. Not sure about the BitBlt >>> tests. Isn't that a known issue? I thought I saw a thread about that. >>> Seems like something that should be fixable after 4.0. 4.0 roughly >>> equals 3.10.2... >> >> -- >> =========================================================================== >> John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> Twitter: squeaker68882 >> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com >> =========================================================================== > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger
I have some questions for Board.
What is the life cycle of 4.0 ? The people in charge bother for update until the Closures enters to system as I beg tons of times for 3.10 and of course don't was listen ? When I could start 4.1 ? What the schedule for 4.1? My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. This is coordination . All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. Begin to play together if we want win the 2010 Season to the Pharo car !!! You have the talent and the only way I stop bothering all is when all test go green and no obscure thing breaks the "car" Squeak 4dot1.image Edgar |
|
|
On 14.03.2010, at 08:08, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> > When I could start 4.1 ? It's underway already, called trunk. Just needs to be rebased on 4.0. > What the schedule for 4.1? No definite schedule yet but IMHO should come ASAP after 4.0. > My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. > Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. > This is coordination . Sounds good to me :) > All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. +1 - Bert - |
|
|
+1 to all what Edgar says.
But Edgar, be patient. Let us get past this relicensing shit (it costed me some brain cells, despite i tried to stay away from it most of the times). So, then we will have a free hands, ready for more fun :) On 14 March 2010 14:30, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 14.03.2010, at 08:08, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote: >> >> When I could start 4.1 ? > > It's underway already, called trunk. Just needs to be rebased on 4.0. > >> What the schedule for 4.1? > > No definite schedule yet but IMHO should come ASAP after 4.0. > >> My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. >> Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. >> This is coordination . > > Sounds good to me :) > >> All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. > > +1 > > - Bert - > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
On 3/14/10 12:38 PM, "Igor Stasenko" <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 to all what Edgar says. > > But Edgar, be patient. Let us get past this relicensing shit (it > costed me some brain cells, despite i tried to stay away from it most > of the times). > So, then we will have a free hands, ready for more fun :) Ok. I have no hurry. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Edgar De Cleene
You might want to reconsider freezing at update 9371.
This is already 310 updates behind the latest when I checked today. That is: three hundred and ten updates behind. Not version 3.10. Seems to me like a lot to be behind when doing a release. Ken G. Brown At 5:08 AM -0200 3/14/10, Edgar J. De Cleene apparently wrote: >I have some questions for Board. > >What is the life cycle of 4.0 ? > >The people in charge bother for update until the Closures enters to system >as I beg tons of times for 3.10 and of course don't was listen ? > >When I could start 4.1 ? > >What the schedule for 4.1? >My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. >Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. >This is coordination . >All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. > > >Begin to play together if we want win the 2010 Season to the Pharo car !!! > >You have the talent and the only way I stop bothering all is when all test >go green and no obscure thing breaks the "car" Squeak 4dot1.image > > >Edgar |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> You might want to reconsider freezing at update 9371. A big -1 from me. Levente > This is already 310 updates behind the latest when I checked today. > That is: three hundred and ten updates behind. Not version 3.10. > > Seems to me like a lot to be behind when doing a release. > > Ken G. Brown > > At 5:08 AM -0200 3/14/10, Edgar J. De Cleene apparently wrote: >> I have some questions for Board. >> >> What is the life cycle of 4.0 ? >> >> The people in charge bother for update until the Closures enters to system >> as I beg tons of times for 3.10 and of course don't was listen ? >> >> When I could start 4.1 ? >> >> What the schedule for 4.1? >> My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. >> Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. >> This is coordination . >> All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. >> >> >> Begin to play together if we want win the 2010 Season to the Pharo car !!! >> >> You have the talent and the only way I stop bothering all is when all test >> go green and no obscure thing breaks the "car" Squeak 4dot1.image >> >> >> Edgar > > > |
|
|
On 15 March 2010 04:00, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote: > >> You might want to reconsider freezing at update 9371. > > A big -1 from me. > > -1 too. It reminds me a turtle and sprinter paradox. The turtle started first, and were able to crawl half way to finish. Sprinter runs much faster than turtle, but once he run half the way to finish, a turtle were able to crawl a bit more. To match with turtle, a sprinter needs also to run this distance, but while he takes time to run it, a turtle crawls forward a bit more, and so on, so on. So, we can make a conclusion: no matter how fast a sprinter runs, he can't catch up with turtle :) > Levente > >> This is already 310 updates behind the latest when I checked today. >> That is: three hundred and ten updates behind. Not version 3.10. >> >> Seems to me like a lot to be behind when doing a release. >> >> Ken G. Brown >> >> At 5:08 AM -0200 3/14/10, Edgar J. De Cleene apparently wrote: >>> >>> I have  some questions for Board. >>> >>> What is the life cycle of 4.0 ? >>> >>> The people in charge bother for update until the Closures enters to >>> system >>> as I beg tons of times for 3.10 and of course don't was listen ? >>> >>> When I could start 4.1 ? >>> >>> What the schedule for 4.1? >>> My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. >>> Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. >>> This is coordination . >>> All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. >>> >>> >>> Begin to play together if we want win the 2010 Season to the Pharo car >>> !!! >>> >>> You have the talent and the only way I stop bothering all is when all >>> test >>> go green and no obscure thing breaks the "car" Squeak 4dot1.image >>> >>> >>> Edgar >> >> >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
I don't understand the -1.
Does it refer to freezing at 9371? Or the 'reconsider'? ie do you mean you would prefer freezing at an update closer than three hundred and ten updates behind? Like maybe the latest unofficial release = Squeak3.11-9622-alpha.zip? Ken G. Brown At 4:30 AM +0200 3/15/10, Igor Stasenko apparently wrote: >On 15 March 2010 04:00, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> >>> You might want to reconsider freezing at update 9371. >> >> A big -1 from me. >> >> >-1 too. >It reminds me a turtle and sprinter paradox. >The turtle started first, and were able to crawl half way to finish. >Sprinter runs much faster than turtle, but once he run half the way to >finish, a turtle >were able to crawl a bit more. To match with turtle, a sprinter needs >also to run this distance, >but while he takes time to run it, a turtle crawls forward a bit more, >and so on, so on. >So, we can make a conclusion: no matter how fast a sprinter runs, he >can't catch up with turtle :) > >> Levente >> >>> This is already 310 updates behind the latest when I checked today. >>> That is: three hundred and ten updates behind. Not version 3.10. >>> >>> Seems to me like a lot to be behind when doing a release. >>> >>> Ken G. Brown >>> >>> At 5:08 AM -0200 3/14/10, Edgar J. De Cleene apparently wrote: >>>> >>>> I have some questions for Board. >>>> >>>> What is the life cycle of 4.0 ? >>>> >>>> The people in charge bother for update until the Closures enters to >>>> system >>>> as I beg tons of times for 3.10 and of course don't was listen ? >>>> >>>> When I could start 4.1 ? >>>> >>>> What the schedule for 4.1? >>>> My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. >>>> Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. >>>> This is coordination . >>>> All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin to play together if we want win the 2010 Season to the Pharo car >>>> !!! >>>> >>>> You have the talent and the only way I stop bothering all is when all >>>> test >>>> go green and no obscure thing breaks the "car" Squeak 4dot1.image >>>> >>>> >>>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > >-- >Best regards, >Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> I don't understand the -1. > Does it refer to freezing at 9371? Or the 'reconsider'? Freezing. > > ie do you mean you would prefer freezing at an update closer than three hundred and ten updates behind? Like maybe the latest unofficial release = > Squeak3.11-9622-alpha.zip? > I want to fix/enhance a few more things. Levente > Ken G. Brown > > > At 4:30 AM +0200 3/15/10, Igor Stasenko apparently wrote: >> On 15 March 2010 04:00, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>> >>>> You might want to reconsider freezing at update 9371. >>> >>> A big -1 from me. >>> >>> >> -1 too. >> It reminds me a turtle and sprinter paradox. >> The turtle started first, and were able to crawl half way to finish. >> Sprinter runs much faster than turtle, but once he run half the way to >> finish, a turtle >> were able to crawl a bit more. To match with turtle, a sprinter needs >> also to run this distance, >> but while he takes time to run it, a turtle crawls forward a bit more, >> and so on, so on. >> So, we can make a conclusion: no matter how fast a sprinter runs, he >> can't catch up with turtle :) >> >>> Levente >>> >>>> This is already 310 updates behind the latest when I checked today. >>>> That is: three hundred and ten updates behind. Not version 3.10. >>>> >>>> Seems to me like a lot to be behind when doing a release. >>>> >>>> Ken G. Brown >>>> >>>> At 5:08 AM -0200 3/14/10, Edgar J. De Cleene apparently wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have some questions for Board. >>>>> >>>>> What is the life cycle of 4.0 ? >>>>> >>>>> The people in charge bother for update until the Closures enters to >>>>> system >>>>> as I beg tons of times for 3.10 and of course don't was listen ? >>>>> >>>>> When I could start 4.1 ? >>>>> >>>>> What the schedule for 4.1? >>>>> My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. >>>>> Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. >>>>> This is coordination . >>>>> All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Begin to play together if we want win the 2010 Season to the Pharo car >>>>> !!! >>>>> >>>>> You have the talent and the only way I stop bothering all is when all >>>>> test >>>>> go green and no obscure thing breaks the "car" Squeak 4dot1.image >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > > |
|
|
Ok, I agree as well that the release might be better closer to the current state.
Another option I suppose would be to match the unofficial releases on the ftp site now, like so: Squeak-4.01 = Squeak3.11-8472-alpha.zip 4.02 = Squeak3.11-8720-alpha.zip 4.03 = Squeak3.11-8931-alpha.zip 4.04 = Squeak3.11-9371-alpha.zip 4.05 = Squeak3.11-9622-alpha.zip Not sure what to do with Squeak3.11-9622-core.zip Perhaps there needs to be a Squeak-4.x as well as a Squeak-Core-4.x Ken G. Brown At 5:05 AM +0100 3/15/10, Levente Uzonyi apparently wrote: >On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote: > >>I don't understand the -1. >>Does it refer to freezing at 9371? Or the 'reconsider'? > >Freezing. > >> >>ie do you mean you would prefer freezing at an update closer than three hundred and ten updates behind? Like maybe the latest unofficial release = >>Squeak3.11-9622-alpha.zip? >> > >I want to fix/enhance a few more things. > > >Levente > >>Ken G. Brown >> >> >>At 4:30 AM +0200 3/15/10, Igor Stasenko apparently wrote: >>>On 15 March 2010 04:00, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>>You might want to reconsider freezing at update 9371. >>>> >>>>A big -1 from me. >>>> >>>-1 too. >>>It reminds me a turtle and sprinter paradox. >>>The turtle started first, and were able to crawl half way to finish. >>>Sprinter runs much faster than turtle, but once he run half the way to >>>finish, a turtle >>>were able to crawl a bit more. To match with turtle, a sprinter needs >>>also to run this distance, >>>but while he takes time to run it, a turtle crawls forward a bit more, >>>and so on, so on. >>>So, we can make a conclusion: no matter how fast a sprinter runs, he >>>can't catch up with turtle :) >>> >>>>Levente >>>> >>>>>This is already 310 updates behind the latest when I checked today. >>>>>That is: three hundred and ten updates behind. Not version 3.10. >>>>> >>>>>Seems to me like a lot to be behind when doing a release. >>>>> >>>>>Ken G. Brown >>>>> >>>>>At 5:08 AM -0200 3/14/10, Edgar J. De Cleene apparently wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>I have some questions for Board. >>>>>> >>>>>>What is the life cycle of 4.0 ? >>>>>> >>>>>>The people in charge bother for update until the Closures enters to >>>>>>system >>>>>>as I beg tons of times for 3.10 and of course don't was listen ? >>>>>> >>>>>>When I could start 4.1 ? >>>>>> >>>>>>What the schedule for 4.1? >>>>>>My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. >>>>>>Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. >>>>>>This is coordination . >>>>>>All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Begin to play together if we want win the 2010 Season to the Pharo car >>>>>>!!! >>>>>> >>>>>>You have the talent and the only way I stop bothering all is when all >>>>>>test >>>>>>go green and no obscure thing breaks the "car" Squeak 4dot1.image >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Best regards, >>>Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Juan Vuletich-4
Juan,
Thanks for having a look good sir! The Disney thing was pointed out by a couple of people. When I was handling that I also noticed that I hadn't made reference to the license window. Sorry, I should have replied about the copyright methods. What I heard back was that indeed some parts of the system are under different copyrights, and this isn't a relicense blocker. Again, if SFC comes back with a different story, I can remove them. On Saturday, March 13, 2010, <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Does anyone have any objections to Squeak 4.0 RC3? If so, now is your >> time to be heard. If I don't hear anything else, I'll be calling RC3 >> "Gold Master" and shipping it tonight or tomorrow. >> >> If you haven't tested it out, please do, and let me know if there's >> anything that blocks relicense, entrance into the SFC, or irrevocably >> prevents deploying changes in from Trunk. >> >> Thanks folks. >> >> -- >> Casey Ransberger >> > > Hi Casey, > > I don't know if this is important at all, but the "Welcome to..." window > has a description to the license that doesn't mention the "License" > window. Besides, in "Welcome to..." it says (c) Apple and Disney, and in > "License" it says (c) The Squeak Community, Xerox, Apple. It would be good > not to repeat this stuff, and if it is repeated, it should match. > > Besides, it contains SystemDictionary>>#copytight and > Utilities>>#copyrightNotice that also don't match. (BTW, I said this about > 2 weeks ago). > > This is not a show stopper, but the Mac VM is not updated to latest > VMMaker and doesn't pass the BitBlt tests. Well, the failing tests are not > in the 4.0 image, but the BitBlt bugs are in the bundled Mac VM anyway. > > Cheers, > Juan Vuletich > > -- Casey Ransberger |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> Ok, I agree as well that the release might be better closer to the current state. > Another option I suppose would be to match the unofficial releases on the ftp site now, like so: These are just snapshots, not releases. There are more of them in the obsolete directory if you're interested in them. > > Squeak-4.01 = Squeak3.11-8472-alpha.zip > 4.02 = Squeak3.11-8720-alpha.zip > 4.03 = Squeak3.11-8931-alpha.zip > 4.04 = Squeak3.11-9371-alpha.zip > 4.05 = Squeak3.11-9622-alpha.zip > > Not sure what to do with Squeak3.11-9622-core.zip > > Perhaps there needs to be a Squeak-4.x as well as a Squeak-Core-4.x All of these images are history. As you probably know, when 4.0 is out, we will replay the trunk changes based on the 4.0 release. This will become the new Trunk image which will be license clean. Soon after that we will freeze the features. At that point we will concentrate on bugfixes, tests and documentation. If we are ready with that, we will create a release candidate. If no new issues will occur we will release 4.1, otherwise further release candidates may come before 4.1. 4.1 will have a Core release too and probably others (like Full). Levente > > Ken G. Brown > > At 5:05 AM +0100 3/15/10, Levente Uzonyi apparently wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> >>> I don't understand the -1. >>> Does it refer to freezing at 9371? Or the 'reconsider'? >> >> Freezing. >> >>> >>> ie do you mean you would prefer freezing at an update closer than three hundred and ten updates behind? Like maybe the latest unofficial release = >>> Squeak3.11-9622-alpha.zip? >>> >> >> I want to fix/enhance a few more things. >> >> >> Levente >> >>> Ken G. Brown >>> >>> >>> At 4:30 AM +0200 3/15/10, Igor Stasenko apparently wrote: >>>> On 15 March 2010 04:00, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You might want to reconsider freezing at update 9371. >>>>> >>>>> A big -1 from me. >>>>> >>>> -1 too. >>>> It reminds me a turtle and sprinter paradox. >>>> The turtle started first, and were able to crawl half way to finish. >>>> Sprinter runs much faster than turtle, but once he run half the way to >>>> finish, a turtle >>>> were able to crawl a bit more. To match with turtle, a sprinter needs >>>> also to run this distance, >>>> but while he takes time to run it, a turtle crawls forward a bit more, >>>> and so on, so on. >>>> So, we can make a conclusion: no matter how fast a sprinter runs, he >>>> can't catch up with turtle :) >>>> >>>>> Levente >>>>> >>>>>> This is already 310 updates behind the latest when I checked today. >>>>>> That is: three hundred and ten updates behind. Not version 3.10. >>>>>> >>>>>> Seems to me like a lot to be behind when doing a release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken G. Brown >>>>>> >>>>>> At 5:08 AM -0200 3/14/10, Edgar J. De Cleene apparently wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have some questions for Board. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is the life cycle of 4.0 ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The people in charge bother for update until the Closures enters to >>>>>>> system >>>>>>> as I beg tons of times for 3.10 and of course don't was listen ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When I could start 4.1 ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What the schedule for 4.1? >>>>>>> My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. >>>>>>> Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. >>>>>>> This is coordination . >>>>>>> All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Begin to play together if we want win the 2010 Season to the Pharo car >>>>>>> !!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have the talent and the only way I stop bothering all is when all >>>>>>> test >>>>>>> go green and no obscure thing breaks the "car" Squeak 4dot1.image >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > > |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote: > >> Ok, I agree as well that the release might be better closer to the current >> state. >> Another option I suppose would be to match the unofficial releases on the >> ftp site now, like so: > > These are just snapshots, not releases. There are more of them in the > obsolete directory if you're interested in them. Not obsolete, outdated. Levente > >> >> Squeak-4.01 = Squeak3.11-8472-alpha.zip >> 4.02 = Squeak3.11-8720-alpha.zip >> 4.03 = Squeak3.11-8931-alpha.zip >> 4.04 = Squeak3.11-9371-alpha.zip >> 4.05 = Squeak3.11-9622-alpha.zip >> >> Not sure what to do with Squeak3.11-9622-core.zip >> >> Perhaps there needs to be a Squeak-4.x as well as a Squeak-Core-4.x > > All of these images are history. As you probably know, when 4.0 is out, we > will replay the trunk changes based on the 4.0 release. This will become the > new Trunk image which will be license clean. Soon after that we will freeze > the features. At that point we will concentrate on bugfixes, tests and > documentation. If we are ready with that, we will create a release candidate. > If no new issues will occur we will release 4.1, otherwise further release > candidates may come before 4.1. 4.1 will have a Core release too and probably > others (like Full). > > > Levente > >> >> Ken G. Brown >> >> At 5:05 AM +0100 3/15/10, Levente Uzonyi apparently wrote: >>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>> >>>> I don't understand the -1. >>>> Does it refer to freezing at 9371? Or the 'reconsider'? >>> >>> Freezing. >>> >>>> >>>> ie do you mean you would prefer freezing at an update closer than three >>>> hundred and ten updates behind? Like maybe the latest unofficial release >>>> = >>>> Squeak3.11-9622-alpha.zip? >>>> >>> >>> I want to fix/enhance a few more things. >>> >>> >>> Levente >>> >>>> Ken G. Brown >>>> >>>> >>>> At 4:30 AM +0200 3/15/10, Igor Stasenko apparently wrote: >>>>> On 15 March 2010 04:00, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You might want to reconsider freezing at update 9371. >>>>>> >>>>>> A big -1 from me. >>>>>> >>>>> -1 too. >>>>> It reminds me a turtle and sprinter paradox. >>>>> The turtle started first, and were able to crawl half way to finish. >>>>> Sprinter runs much faster than turtle, but once he run half the way to >>>>> finish, a turtle >>>>> were able to crawl a bit more. To match with turtle, a sprinter needs >>>>> also to run this distance, >>>>> but while he takes time to run it, a turtle crawls forward a bit more, >>>>> and so on, so on. >>>>> So, we can make a conclusion: no matter how fast a sprinter runs, he >>>>> can't catch up with turtle :) >>>>> >>>>>> Levente >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is already 310 updates behind the latest when I checked today. >>>>>>> That is: three hundred and ten updates behind. Not version 3.10. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Seems to me like a lot to be behind when doing a release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ken G. Brown >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At 5:08 AM -0200 3/14/10, Edgar J. De Cleene apparently wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have some questions for Board. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is the life cycle of 4.0 ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The people in charge bother for update until the Closures enters to >>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>> as I beg tons of times for 3.10 and of course don't was listen ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I could start 4.1 ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What the schedule for 4.1? >>>>>>>> My idea is go to 9371 update and frooze. >>>>>>>> Rip all know bugs and try to get green all test. >>>>>>>> This is coordination . >>>>>>>> All CoreDevelopers should take serious the quality of the release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Begin to play together if we want win the 2010 Season to the Pharo >>>>>>>> car >>>>>>>> !!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have the talent and the only way I stop bothering all is when all >>>>>>>> test >>>>>>>> go green and no obscure thing breaks the "car" Squeak 4dot1.image >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> >> >> > > |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |