[Squeak 4.0] RC3 is out

> At 10:17 PM +0100 3/14/10, Nicolas Cellier apparently wrote:
>>2010/3/14 Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]>:
>>> Well, I disagree with the decision.
>>>
>>> You had at least two available starting points, 3.10.2 and 3.10.2-build, -buiild was clearly better and available since June 28, 2009 (before trunk).
>>> The fixes and additions to 3.10.2 in -build were clearly documented in the info file on the ftp site, Squeak3.10.2-build/090628-1523/090628-1523_Squeak3.10.2-build.info.
>>> And you all are choosing the one that was inferior as a starting point.
>>>
>>> It's like running a race and intentionally trying for second place.
>>>
>>> But so be it. The community will have to live with the choice.
>>>
>>> Ken G. Brown
>>>
>>
>>Yes, that's an unfortunate waste of time.
>>If only it were named 3.10.3, then no doubt it would have been a
>>starting point for both trunk and 4.0.
>>But 3.10.2-build, what is it ?
>>You know very well that it results from task assigned to Keith, not
>>really oriented in producing an updated image but an update process.
>
> That I believe is a bit of misinformation.
> It was always about producing the tools that automated the repeatable building of updated images, any one of which could be designated a 'release'.
>
> You know very well what the -build was/is. It has been explained over and over again.
>
>>So this 3.10.2-build is just a by-product of Keith's process, a proof
>>of concept. Or is it more than that ? the name does not tell...
>
> It was the starter with the minimum stuff added over 3.10.2 necessary for building images, whichever you want.
>
>>The fact that the author retracted any support did not help.
>>Sure, that could have evolved differently with better communication.
>>Now, it's too late.
>
> It's not too late...yet. Will be soon.
>
>>Trunk is based on 3.10.2, and basing 4.0 another
>>starting point will just add un-nexessary complications.
>>So what do you suggest, erase trunk efforts?
>
> Make trunk updates load on 3.10.2-build, then base 4.0 on 3.10.2-build call it 3.10.3 if you like.
>
> Ken G. Brown
>
>>Nicolas
>>
>>> At 12:02 PM -0700 3/14/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote:
>>>> >>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>Ken> There were some important fixes in Keith's ftp://ftp.squeak.org/3.11-obsolete/Squeak3.10.2-build/
>>>>Ken> image that would most likely be good to get in the 4.0.
>>>>
>>>>In 4.1, yes.  4.0, no.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
>>>><[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
>>>>Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
>>>>See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

> >>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>Ken> You had at least two available starting points, 3.10.2 and 3.10.2-build,
>Ken> -buiild was clearly better and available since June 28, 2009 (before
>Ken> trunk).  The fixes and additions to 3.10.2 in -build were clearly
>Ken> documented in the info file on the ftp site,
>Ken> Squeak3.10.2-build/090628-1523/090628-1523_Squeak3.10.2-build.info.  And
>Ken> you all are choosing the one that was inferior as a starting point.
>
>I think I could find at least a dozen squeak developers here who
>would agree with me that if 3.10.2-build was a fixed point, it's
>a bad name for a release, and if it was a moving point, it would
>be a bad place to start the legal process.
>
>Had that been released as 3.10.3, or 3.11, your point would have merit.