[Squeak 4.0] Release Candidate

I have a build packaged for all the platforms supported at
ftp.squeak.org which is ready for testing. As the file
(Squeak4.0.tar.gz) is rather large, I figured I wouldn't spam the
whole list with it via email.

Get it here:

http://zyu.freeshell.org/

Break it out and test it!

If all is well, we can call it a touchdown and put the files up on the
FTP server.

--
Casey Ransberger, a.k.a. Ronald Spengler

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:46:23 -0800, Ronald Spengler
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>Get it here:
>
>http://zyu.freeshell.org/

You've exceeded your daily download quota... Maybe you can put it
somewhere on squeak.org?

Later,
Jon

And rename it 4.0RC1 or the like?

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 13:39, Jon Hylands <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, there's a dropped ball on my part: I don't have FTP access.
Sorry folks. This is going to have to wait another day. I've sent mail
to the board, and put the file up in another location. I'm not going
to announce where it is to the list yet, as something similar will
happen there if too many people grab at it.

It was late, and I wasn't thinking about bandwidth quotas. Oops.

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Alexander Lazarević <[hidden email]> wrote:


--
Ron

The tar file is now also at:

        http://ftp.squeak.org/4.0alpha/Squeak4.0.rc1.tar.gz

and its contents (if you don't want to download all the versions):

        http://ftp.squeak.org/4.0alpha/rc1/

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 3/8/2010 9:46 PM, Ronald Spengler wrote:

Here are a few comments:

- Should we include a unix vm such as here:
        http://ftp.squeak.org/3.10/unix-linux/
(I'm not a unix user but if I were interested in Squeak and wanted to
use the license clean version, I'd be interested in finding a vm with it)

- the md5sums look like Windows, shouldn't they be on the zip files?

- I'd prefer (but not too strongly) if the LICENSE file was properly
wrapped. At least my FF isn't putting any line breaks in which makes it
hard to read.

I don't consider any of these blockers though; I'd be fine to ship rc1
as is.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 3/8/2010 9:46 PM, Ronald Spengler wrote:

I just copied the format of what was in the 3.10 directory with regard
to the md5sums file (which wound up being a pain to generate... OSX
has a different md5 command than Linux, the hashes are presumably the
same, butthe decoration around them is different... sed to the rescue)

I'd be willing to guess that unix folks are happy enough with the
existing arrangement VM-wise.

In short, the above two issues are not regressions from 3.10 :)

Not sure what to do about the line breaks thing. The license file is
new, so that could be considered a bug.

On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
--
Ron

> http://ftp.squeak.org/4.0alpha/rc1/

Yay, getting there :)

Notes:

* SystemVersion should be 'Squeak4.0', it is still 3.10.2

* ChangeSets need to be removed

* I'd put a CR after the license in the sources file. You need to rewrite it anyway to have 4.0 appear in it, not 3.10.2

* the Mac version should include a newer VM (but that's no blocker)


- Bert -

On 09.03.2010, at 18:58, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Also, the license display in the Welcome window could be made a bit more friendly. Paste this in, select the whole line, press Cmd-6, and choose "do it":

Smalltalk license<StringHolder new contents: Smalltalk license; openLabel: 'License'>

- Bert -

Thinking of taking that part out and just putting the license text in
another window.

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:


--
Ron

Regarding SystemVersion: What exactly needs to be done here? I wasn't
aware of this requirement.

ChangeSets: Do I just need to open a change sorter and destroy all the
change sets?

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:


--
Ron

Ah, okay. Got the SystemVersion thing fished out.

SystemVersion setVersion

(I hope, ahaha)

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Ronald Spengler <[hidden email]> wrote:


--
Casey Ransberger

If I understand correctly Squeak 4 is Squeak 3.10.2 but with the MIT license tag on it even though it has hundreds of methods from authors that have not signed the agreement. Is this OK from a legal point of view? Just curious...

Cheers,
Adrian

BTW, in Pharo we rewrote or removed all dirty code. This is documented here in case you are interested: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort and http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing


On Mar 10, 2010, at 08:12 , Ronald Spengler wrote:

Ronald Spengler wrote:
> Regarding SystemVersion: What exactly needs to be done here? I wasn't
> aware of this requirement.
>
> ChangeSets: Do I just need to open a change sorter and destroy all the
> change sets?

Isn't there a class called ReleaseBuilder or such that does most of this
preparation stuff?

regards, Göran

Adrian Lienhard wrote on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:19:44 +0100

> If I understand correctly Squeak 4 is Squeak 3.10.2 but with
> the MIT license tag on it even though it has hundreds of methods
> from authors that have not signed the agreement. Is this OK
> from a legal point of view? Just curious...

This is a very important question. The issue is risk management. As Alan
Kay often pointed out in the old license discussions, it is impossible
to reduce the risk of being sued to zero. No matter what you do it can
still happen. But your actions can certainly increase or reduce that
risk.

So our first step was to audit the 3.10.2 image in as much detail as we
could. I personally reread every email from the first couple of years of
Squeak, for example, and identified the authors of all changes that
happened before we had time stamps. We evaluated the work that the Etoys
group had done as well as the material that you pointed out below. We
sent out a new round of emails, which resulted in slightly increasing
the list of signed authors (the list was already slightly larger since
we got updated information from VPRI).

Originally, the amount of code from authors who hadn't signed was 478
methods and 5289 lines of code. I don't have the number after the recent
reductions, but since it isn't zero there is the risk that at some
future date somebody will say they weren't aware of the relicensing and
don't agree with it. Our policy is that in such a case we will
immediately remove the offending code. They might say that is not
acceptable and want to sue us anyway. You might imagine what the chances
of this actually happening is, and as long as it is below a certain
level we can be accepted by the SFC.

> BTW, in Pharo we rewrote or removed all dirty code. This
> is documented here in case you are interested:
> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort
> and http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing

Thank you very much for that work and your careful documentation of it.
That information was extremely valuable for our own effort.

-- Jecel

On 3/10/2010 6:33 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
> Originally, the amount of code from authors who hadn't signed was 478
> methods and 5289 lines of code. I don't have the number after the recent
> reductions, but since it isn't zero there is the risk that at some
> future date somebody will say they weren't aware of the relicensing and
> don't agree with it. Our policy is that in such a case we will
> immediately remove the offending code. They might say that is not
> acceptable and want to sue us anyway. You might imagine what the chances
> of this actually happening is, and as long as it is below a certain
> level we can be accepted by the SFC.

More importantly, the process we're following is based on the SFC's (and
its lawyers) recommendations on how to handle the matter. What the SFC
asked us to do were things like trying another round of identifying the
contributors and contacting them, and to post our intent to change the
license. Interestingly, they didn't feel it was necessary to rewrite
every last line that anyone ever touched even though we had offered it.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Interesting. Thanks for the background info.

Cheers,
Adrian

On Mar 10, 2010, at 17:23 , Andreas Raab wrote: