Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

>Folks -
>
>This is part two of two about upcoming releases. Besides the 4.0 release we need to get ready for a release from the trunk. If you look at rather long list of improvements this is a good time to get a release out.
>
>One of the things that's a bit odd here is that we don't know yet whether the trunk release will become 3.11 or 4.1. That's because it depends on whether we can get the relicensing done before the trunk release is ready or not. If the 4.0 release happens relatively quickly, we can go straight to 4.1. However, at the board meeting we had agreement that we didn't want to introduce an artificial dependency here, so we'll be working towards 3.11 and if 4.0 gets done in time we'll just jump straight into 4.1.
>
>To avoid confusion, let's refer to it as "trunk release" until we have more clarity of what version it is likely to be.
>
>The real question is what remains to be done for the next release. In theory, we could just release a trunk image pretty much "as is" but from my perspective this is aiming too low. I'd like to make this a richer release than what a trunk image contains. To do this we'll have to find consensus about:
>* what documentation to include
>* what external/optional packages to include
>* what the welcome screen should look like
>* what extra projects to include
>* ... and more ....
>and that's besides the usual release work of ensuring that we've got the tests green, packaging Squeak for the platforms and so on.
>
>I think what we're looking for here is really a release manager and team that think a bit like a product manager. We have a Squeak image and there's plenty of interesting code out there, what we need to do is to build an interesting AND useful artifact that we like as a starting point for people to explore Squeak.
>
>I know some people have expressed interest in the release manager role for the next release (nudge, nudge Edgar :-) so again we need volunteers both for driving the process, decide on the deadlines, and get things done as well as team members for the various bits to be done.
>
>Please don't be shy. If you'd like to actively participate in the next release, post your thoughts.
>
>Cheers,
>  - Andreas

> Whatever you call the trunk release, in my opinion it should not be called 3.11. There is too much out there already talking about 3.11 and it's history, and if you call the proposed trunk release 3.11, there will continue to be confusion generated far into the future.
>
> eg:
> <http://installer.pbworks.com/311>
>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311>
>  This is the Proposal to the board which was to my knowledge accepted.
>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal>
>
> In my view, the better way forward would be restore the ftp directory structure to what it was: 3.11 and its previous contents still called 3.11 and not pointing to trunk, add a readme in the 3.11 directory saying 3.11 was never a proper official release and be done with it.
>

> Ken G. Brown
>
>
> At 12:52 AM -0800 2/19/10, Andreas Raab apparently wrote:
>>Folks -
>>
>>This is part two of two about upcoming releases. Besides the 4.0 release we need to get ready for a release from the trunk. If you look at rather long list of improvements this is a good time to get a release out.
>>
>>One of the things that's a bit odd here is that we don't know yet whether the trunk release will become 3.11 or 4.1. That's because it depends on whether we can get the relicensing done before the trunk release is ready or not. If the 4.0 release happens relatively quickly, we can go straight to 4.1. However, at the board meeting we had agreement that we didn't want to introduce an artificial dependency here, so we'll be working towards 3.11 and if 4.0 gets done in time we'll just jump straight into 4.1.
>>
>>To avoid confusion, let's refer to it as "trunk release" until we have more clarity of what version it is likely to be.
>>
>>The real question is what remains to be done for the next release. In theory, we could just release a trunk image pretty much "as is" but from my perspective this is aiming too low. I'd like to make this a richer release than what a trunk image contains. To do this we'll have to find consensus about:
>>* what documentation to include
>>* what external/optional packages to include
>>* what the welcome screen should look like
>>* what extra projects to include
>>* ... and more ....
>>and that's besides the usual release work of ensuring that we've got the tests green, packaging Squeak for the platforms and so on.
>>
>>I think what we're looking for here is really a release manager and team that think a bit like a product manager. We have a Squeak image and there's plenty of interesting code out there, what we need to do is to build an interesting AND useful artifact that we like as a starting point for people to explore Squeak.
>>
>>I know some people have expressed interest in the release manager role for the next release (nudge, nudge Edgar :-) so again we need volunteers both for driving the process, decide on the deadlines, and get things done as well as team members for the various bits to be done.
>>
>>Please don't be shy. If you'd like to actively participate in the next release, post your thoughts.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>
>
>

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I know some people have expressed interest in the release manager role for
>> the next release (nudge, nudge Edgar :-) so again we need volunteers both
>> for driving the process, decide on the deadlines, and get things done as
>> well as team members for the various bits to be done.
>
> if I may offer myself as team member ...
>

>On 19 February 2010 20:19, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Whatever you call the trunk release, in my opinion it should not be called 3.11. There is too much out there already talking about 3.11 and it's history, and if you call the proposed trunk release 3.11, there will continue to be confusion generated far into the future.
>>
>> eg:
>> <http://installer.pbworks.com/311>
>>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311>
>>  This is the Proposal to the board which was to my knowledge accepted.
>>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal>
>>
>> In my view, the better way forward would be restore the ftp directory structure to what it was: 3.11 and its previous contents still called 3.11 and not pointing to trunk, add a readme in the 3.11 directory saying 3.11 was never a proper official release and be done with it.
>>
>
>What version number you suggesting then for trunk release?

> > Ken G. Brown
>>
>>
>> At 12:52 AM -0800 2/19/10, Andreas Raab apparently wrote:
>>>Folks -
>>>
>>>This is part two of two about upcoming releases. Besides the 4.0 release we need to get ready for a release from the trunk. If you look at rather long list of improvements this is a good time to get a release out.
>>>
>>>One of the things that's a bit odd here is that we don't know yet whether the trunk release will become 3.11 or 4.1. That's because it depends on whether we can get the relicensing done before the trunk release is ready or not. If the 4.0 release happens relatively quickly, we can go straight to 4.1. However, at the board meeting we had agreement that we didn't want to introduce an artificial dependency here, so we'll be working towards 3.11 and if 4.0 gets done in time we'll just jump straight into 4.1.
>>>
>>>To avoid confusion, let's refer to it as "trunk release" until we have more clarity of what version it is likely to be.
>>>
>>>The real question is what remains to be done for the next release. In theory, we could just release a trunk image pretty much "as is" but from my perspective this is aiming too low. I'd like to make this a richer release than what a trunk image contains. To do this we'll have to find consensus about:
>>>* what documentation to include
>>>* what external/optional packages to include
>>>* what the welcome screen should look like
>>>* what extra projects to include
>>>* ... and more ....
>>>and that's besides the usual release work of ensuring that we've got the tests green, packaging Squeak for the platforms and so on.
>>>
>>>I think what we're looking for here is really a release manager and team that think a bit like a product manager. We have a Squeak image and there's plenty of interesting code out there, what we need to do is to build an interesting AND useful artifact that we like as a starting point for people to explore Squeak.
>>>
>>>I know some people have expressed interest in the release manager role for the next release (nudge, nudge Edgar :-) so again we need volunteers both for driving the process, decide on the deadlines, and get things done as well as team members for the various bits to be done.
>>>
>>>Please don't be shy. If you'd like to actively participate in the next release, post your thoughts.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>  - Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

> On 19 February 2010 20:19, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Whatever you call the trunk release, in my opinion it should not be called 3.11. There is too much out there already talking about 3.11 and it's history, and if you call the proposed trunk release 3.11, there will continue to be confusion generated far into the future.
>>
>> eg:
>> <http://installer.pbworks.com/311>
>>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311>
>>  This is the Proposal to the board which was to my knowledge accepted.
>>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal>
>>
>> In my view, the better way forward would be restore the ftp directory structure to what it was: 3.11 and its previous contents still called 3.11 and not pointing to trunk, add a readme in the 3.11 directory saying 3.11 was never a proper official release and be done with it.
>>
>>    
>
> What version number you suggesting then for trunk release?
> And since original 3.11 effort is abandoned, and there no any official
> releases, what images can be called 3.11 then?
>
>  

> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 19 February 2010 20:19, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Whatever you call the trunk release, in my opinion it should not be
>>> called 3.11. There is too much out there already talking about 3.11 and it's
>>> history, and if you call the proposed trunk release 3.11, there will
>>> continue to be confusion generated far into the future.
>>>
>>> eg:
>>> <http://installer.pbworks.com/311>
>>>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311>
>>>  This is the Proposal to the board which was to my knowledge accepted.
>>>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal>
>>>
>>> In my view, the better way forward would be restore the ftp directory
>>> structure to what it was: 3.11 and its previous contents still called 3.11
>>> and not pointing to trunk, add a readme in the 3.11 directory saying 3.11
>>> was never a proper official release and be done with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What version number you suggesting then for trunk release?
>> And since original 3.11 effort is abandoned, and there no any official
>> releases, what images can be called 3.11 then?
>>
>>
>
> There's no need to have an official and final 3.11, in the same way there
> was never an official 3.3. It is pretty clear to me that trunk is not 3.11!
> I guess 3.12 is a reasonable number. But it would be even better if it could
> be called 4.0, if the relicense process is done by then.
>

> In such case I could become 'Board listening meber', some in contact with
> Board and not doing political decisions.
>
> For members, I like David and Chris, asking here to my far away friend
> Jerome, who has super BUG chasing and documenting skills.
>
> And beg to Ralph for his clear mind become Release advisor.
>
> Juan ? Cuis is super but we need Morphic 3.0 into future main Squeak ASAP
>
> I send this to Dan also , was lucky to eat pizza and drink beer with he and
> friends , doing real small talk :) .

> eg:
> <http://installer.pbworks.com/311>
>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311>
>  This is the Proposal to the board which was to my knowledge accepted.
>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal>
>
> In my view, the better way forward would be restore the ftp directory structure to what it was: 3.11 and its previous contents still called 3.11 and not pointing to trunk, add a readme in the 3.11 directory saying 3.11 was never a proper official release and be done with it.
>
> Ken G. Brown
>
>
> At 12:52 AM -0800 2/19/10, Andreas Raab apparently wrote:
>> Folks -
>>
>> This is part two of two about upcoming releases. Besides the 4.0 release we need to get ready for a release from the trunk. If you look at rather long list of improvements this is a good time to get a release out.
>>
>> One of the things that's a bit odd here is that we don't know yet whether the trunk release will become 3.11 or 4.1. That's because it depends on whether we can get the relicensing done before the trunk release is ready or not. If the 4.0 release happens relatively quickly, we can go straight to 4.1. However, at the board meeting we had agreement that we didn't want to introduce an artificial dependency here, so we'll be working towards 3.11 and if 4.0 gets done in time we'll just jump straight into 4.1.
>>
>> To avoid confusion, let's refer to it as "trunk release" until we have more clarity of what version it is likely to be.
>>
>> The real question is what remains to be done for the next release. In theory, we could just release a trunk image pretty much "as is" but from my perspective this is aiming too low. I'd like to make this a richer release than what a trunk image contains. To do this we'll have to find consensus about:
>> * what documentation to include
>> * what external/optional packages to include
>> * what the welcome screen should look like
>> * what extra projects to include
>> * ... and more ....
>> and that's besides the usual release work of ensuring that we've got the tests green, packaging Squeak for the platforms and so on.
>>
>> I think what we're looking for here is really a release manager and team that think a bit like a product manager. We have a Squeak image and there's plenty of interesting code out there, what we need to do is to build an interesting AND useful artifact that we like as a starting point for people to explore Squeak.
>>
>> I know some people have expressed interest in the release manager role for the next release (nudge, nudge Edgar :-) so again we need volunteers both for driving the process, decide on the deadlines, and get things done as well as team members for the various bits to be done.
>>
>> Please don't be shy. If you'd like to actively participate in the next release, post your thoughts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>
>
>

> On 19 February 2010 21:07, Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19 February 2010 20:19, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whatever you call the trunk release, in my opinion it should not be
>>>> called 3.11. There is too much out there already talking about 3.11 and it's
>>>> history, and if you call the proposed trunk release 3.11, there will
>>>> continue to be confusion generated far into the future.
>>>>
>>>> eg:
>>>> <http://installer.pbworks.com/311>
>>>>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311>
>>>>  This is the Proposal to the board which was to my knowledge accepted.
>>>>  <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal>
>>>>
>>>> In my view, the better way forward would be restore the ftp directory
>>>> structure to what it was: 3.11 and its previous contents still called 3.11
>>>> and not pointing to trunk, add a readme in the 3.11 directory saying 3.11
>>>> was never a proper official release and be done with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What version number you suggesting then for trunk release?
>>> And since original 3.11 effort is abandoned, and there no any official
>>> releases, what images can be called 3.11 then?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There's no need to have an official and final 3.11, in the same way there
>> was never an official 3.3. It is pretty clear to me that trunk is not 3.11!
>> I guess 3.12 is a reasonable number. But it would be even better if it could
>> be called 4.0, if the relicense process is done by then.
>>
>
> Yes. I think this will be the best choice. For historians it would be
> less confusing what call '3.11' effort then.
> So, i suggesting
> a) trunk release will be either 3.12 , or 4.1 (depending on b))
> b) 4.0 is 3.10 , released under MIT license.
>
>> Cheers,
>> Juan Vuletich
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>

> > This is part two of two about upcoming releases. Besides the 4.0 release we
>> need to get ready for a release from the trunk. If you look at rather long
>> list of improvements this is a good time to get a release out.
>
>Yes, but there are still some basic things we should try to fix
>shouldn't we?  For example, it's hard to imagine putting out something
>called anything other than "alpha" with the TextEditor home / end keys
>are not working properly.  Things like this are too low-level to allow
>into a final release because people have a connection to software
>through their mouse, keyboard, and have expectations for certain keys
>to behave in the normal ways.
>
>If it were the backspace key, I'm sure we wouldn't release.  To me the
>home and end keys are right up there..