Towards 3.91

Dear All!

Following some discussion on irc, I am planning to move forward with
3.9.1 release of squeak, and to go through the steps of harvesting some
fixes. The plan is to continue to use 3.9.1alpha as a test bed for fixes
which can also be adopted into 3.10.

Before I make progress on this there is however one absolutely must have
fix!

Have you noticed that when you open a package pane browser, the
category-list scroll bar is unusable until you resize the window. This
is so annoying! Please has anyone got a fix for it?

Keith

p.s. Please email me with your top 3.9 bugs in Squeak 3.9, and I will
publish a "most wanted" list.

Frequently.  I've tried a few hacks to try to get them to properly initialize properly but have not found the trick.

Hi Keith,

It's the same with the inspectors.  You need to resize them before you get
the scroll bar slider.  Thanks for looking at it!  I agree the fix is worth
a release.  

Could we also include fixes for Monticello Configurations?  I have no real
preference for which fix, as long as they work.  

Thanks,

Ron Teitelbaum

Keith Hodges wrote:
> Have you noticed that when you open a package pane browser, the
> category-list scroll bar is unusable until you resize the window. This
> is so annoying! Please has anyone got a fix for it?

Sure, here you go. (note that this also fixes numerous other problems
like the horizontal scrollbars never going away once they appeared)

BTW, if you're looking for other fixes I would strongly recommend either
changing the default window label font to be a non-TTF font or to
include my TTF fixes; the way it is right now 3.9 is borderline unusable
on quite reasonable machines (like my little Panasonic which runs
Croquet just fine) and I wouldn't expect most newbie users to know that
they can speed up Squeak by an order of magnitude merely by not using
TTFs for the window label font.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Or many not-so newbies :-)

Yes!
Diego issued a TTFont cs based on andreas fix.

On 5 mai 07, at 08:06, Andreas Raab wrote:

El 5/5/07 4:28 AM, "stephane ducasse" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> Yes!
> Diego issued a TTFont cs based on andreas fix.


Again I said what using the current update process of made .cs with only a
postcript what loads the real code of 3.10 repository just not work for
Multilingual.

If Ralph agree , some more thing are waiting on Mantis what could be
incorporated to 3.10 via the old good real .cs .

So , it's your call vote for :

1) Have the enhancements / fixes now , using the real .cs

2) Not having the enhancements / fixes now

Edgar

And still waiting feedback about the Integer hex.

El 5/4/07 11:44 PM, "Keith Hodges" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> Dear All!
>
> Following some discussion on irc, I am planning to move forward with
> 3.9.1 release of squeak, and to go through the steps of harvesting some
> fixes. The plan is to continue to use 3.9.1alpha as a test bed for fixes
> which can also be adopted into 3.10.


Keith:

Looking to the past sometimes is good.
But if we wish "made the future", should concentrate on 3.10 and beyond.
3.9 was a step what most people in this list do.
3.11 is what we should discuss.
We should take Pavel Kernel as base ? MinimalMorphic ? (Once I submit some
MinimalAgreement to he and to Ralph)
Juan idea of Morphic 3.0 deserves a deep look.
It's Monticello 2 a better tool for doing a release ? It's ready for we try
it ?

Edgar

El 5/5/07 3:06 AM, "Andreas Raab" <[hidden email]> escribió:

You wish I incorporate the .st in 3.10 ?
What font I should use for the window label ?

Very thanks.

Edgar

> Keith:
>
> Looking to the past sometimes is good.
> But if we wish "made the future", should concentrate on 3.10 and beyond.
>  
Dear Edgar,

I have been working on the process, the process is orthogonal to the
actual release to which it is applied.

3.10 is a moving target whereas 3.9 is an established quantity, and
after a few months in use the list of immediate needs is likely to be
well scoped and easily obtained, 3.9.1 is a simple acheivable, well
defined target to aim at, with which to test the process improvements.

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.

Best regards

Keith

Ron Teitelbaum wrote: Andreas - thanks for that scroll bar fix!

Here is the "Most Wanted Fix List so far" -
http://squeak310.pbwiki.com/From39To391

Do keep your fix requests coming.

best regards

Keith

Keith Hodges wrote: how about including the fix for defect #5451?
=> MNU: TTCFont>>fontArray

keith

if you issue 3.9.1 may be this should not only be a list of fixes but  
creates new packages and
be added to the scriptloader that we used for 3.9. This way this will  
be consistent with 3.9.

Once you have a list of fixes I could try to produce a new image with  
the packages versioned in the 3.9
repository and a cs in the update stream.

Stef


On 6 mai 07, at 03:46, Keith Hodges wrote:

edgar

this is important to continue to publish ***versioned  packages***  
and to keep cs to only extreme cases.
This way we can have a list of packages for 3.10 and not just an  
image with dirty and not saved packages.

Stef


On 5 mai 07, at 12:03, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

stephane ducasse wrote: Dear Stef,

This was the plan. For the plan see http://squeak310.pbwiki.com

This list of fixes is used to generate 3.9.1alpha-test via a script.
Then all the changed packages are updated to a repository, and loading
these packages into 3.9 is used to generate 3.9.1beta-release-candidate.
I would appreciate help with the latter part of the process which I have
not done before. I hope that the fixes to monticello (still in progress)
will make this MUCH easier. I also hope that it can be automated, so we
can iterate a couple of times if need be.

best regards

Keith

El 5/6/07 10:43 AM, "stephane ducasse" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> edgar
>
> this is important to continue to publish ***versioned  packages***
> and to keep cs to only extreme cases.
> This way we can have a list of packages for 3.10 and not just an
> image with dirty and not saved packages.
>
> Stef

I agree what this is the rule , and I follow.
But , you wish have a more responsive Squeak, right ?


Edgar

[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

Ok let me know when you are ready.
Do you publish the version to the 3.9 squeaksource repository?
I do not expect that the fix to MC will help because the root of the  
problems
are deep. Atomic loading in the system written in itself and  
modifying itself is difficult.

Stef

>> this is important to continue to publish ***versioned  packages***
>> and to keep cs to only extreme cases.
>> This way we can have a list of packages for 3.10 and not just an
>> image with dirty and not saved packages.
>>
>> Stef
>
> I agree what this is the rule , and I follow.
> But , you wish have a more responsive Squeak, right ?

isn't what we did with the tons of fixes that have been harvested in  
3.9 ?

stef

Ok let me know when you are ready.
Do you publish the version to the 3.9 squeaksource repository?
I do not expect that the fix to MC will help because the root of the  
problems
are deep. Atomic loading in the system written in itself and  
modifying itself is difficult.

Stef