Towards 3.91

>From: Simon Kirk <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: Towards 3.91
>Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 17:14:34 +0000 (UTC)
>
>[snip]
> >
> > I do not think that it is helpful to plan 3.11 until a) we have a
> > process, and b) we have a framework for specifying what is wanted. I
> > have plans to contribute to a) the process and b) the framework for
> > collaboratively specifying the future roadmap. Hopefully this little
> > 3.9.1 project will serve as an example of how this could be done (or
>not).
> >
> > For now I am picking 3.9.1 as a small, manageable and useful task.
> >
>
>"Planning is everything, plans are nothing"
>http://tinyurl.com/2xqxjd (www.think-box.co.uk)
>
>Keith, while Edgar has a point about looking to the future, I think that
>you are taking absolutely the right approach to concentrate on a small,
>manageable (might I say, incremental?) release.
>
>As long as small releases like this are *always* done while keeping one eye
>on the future direction (cf the planning part of the quote above) then the
>draining and demoralising effect of long-term releases can be avoided by
>constantly releasing maneagable chunks.
>
>As a colleague of mine likes to say, "It's not called a big bang release
>for nothing".
>
>The converse is of course that if these small releases are not always done
>with the future in mind, then a lot of potential is lost. I would suggest
>that from what I've read you are very unlikely to do that, and of course
>I'm sure there would be a host of people to stop you if you did!
>
>This is a long way of saying "I support the effort you're making, keep up
>the good work" :)
>
>Simon
>
>

>From: "Edgar J. De Cleene" <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>Subject: Re: Towards 3.91
>Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 14:02:48 -0300
>
>
>
>
>El 5/7/07 1:14 PM, "J J" <[hidden email]> escribió:
>
> >  I can't
> > believe Andreas fixed the TTFont thing like a year ago (feels like
>anyway)
> > and judging by a recent message I guess this still isn't in the image?
>
>I just try and can't load the Mantis 6809 .cs in fresh 3.9.
>The image just blows.
>3.10 load it.
>But our procedure require the use of Monticello.
>Or what Ralph authorize the use of old .cs for "special cases ".
>I can't still have a .mcz or .mcd for this what don't blow the image.
>I email this fact to v3dot10 list , here and to some Squeakers private.
>
>A plastic miniature of our monument is the reward :=)  (to request of
>talented bug chaser)
>
>
>

> I hope you didn't take what I did as directed at you or the 3.10 team.  I am
> talking about the process.  I'm not 100% clear on what the process is, but
> if it is having a team collect all the bug fixes and put them all into a
> release that happens once every 6 months, along with trying to make the
> image more modular, etc., I think that it's broken.
>
> Maybe the best thing would be to go with a stable vs. unstable branch type
> thing that most projects have?  Patches go instantly into unstable and maybe
> get removed if bad feedback, etc.
>
> I don't know what is the best here, but having a group of 3 people try to
> pull all this off in a short time doesn't seem to be working so well (i.e.
> burning the people out to the point of leaving Squeak entirely, having tons
> of bugs that have to wait for the next cycle to be fixed in the main-line
> image, etc.).