Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Andreas.Raab
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Edgar J. De Cleene



On 2/19/10 6:52 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.


I you was offering such job, the answer is yes.
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 :) .

Edgar





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Michael Haupt-3
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
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 ...

Best,

Michael

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Ken G. Brown
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Igor Stasenko
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
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?

> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Igor Stasenko
In reply to this post by Michael Haupt-3
On 19 February 2010 11:55, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 ...
>

Hi Mike, what prevents you from doing that? :)

> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Ken G. Brown
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
At 8:36 PM +0200 2/19/10, Igor Stasenko apparently 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?

3.12 or 4.1 would be fine in my books. I'm thinking 4.1 might be best. Until then continue with the trunk releases as now, but officializing one of them.

Ken G. Brown

>And since original 3.11 effort is abandoned, and there no any official
>releases, what images can be called 3.11 then?

None. But the ones in the 3.11 folder are the closest.


> > 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.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Juan Vuletich-4
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
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.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Igor Stasenko
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Michael Haupt-3
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
Hi Igor,

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> if I may offer myself as team member ...
>
> Hi Mike, what prevents you from doing that? :)

nothing at all. :-)
Should the leader approve of that, I'll try to be of help.

Best,

Michael

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Randal L. Schwartz
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
>>>>> "Igor" == Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> writes:

Igor> a) trunk release will be either 3.12 , or 4.1 (depending on b))
Igor> b) 4.0 is 3.10 , released under MIT license.

Maybe we could call it 3.14, the "pi" release.

--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Andreas.Raab
In reply to this post by Edgar J. De Cleene
Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> On 2/19/10 6:52 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.
>
>
> I you was offering such job, the answer is yes.

Thanks Edgar.

> 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 :) .

Well it looks like you're on top of it :-) Feel free to ask for help
from the board or the community. We're all here to help in any way we can.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Andreas.Raab
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
Ken G. Brown 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.

I think this is good advise and there is precedent for such an approach.
  3.3 was never finalized and we went from 3.2 to 3.4 so going from 3.10
to 3.12 wouldn't be such a big deal. We'll have to discuss this at the
next board meeting but from what I see in the responses it looks like
there's support for your proposal.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> 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
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Edgar J. De Cleene
In reply to this post by Randal L. Schwartz



On 2/19/10 10:38 PM, "Randal L. Schwartz" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Maybe we could call it 3.14, the "pi" release.

No , I registered the most correct version :=)

http://n4.nabble.com/ANUNCIO-Nuevo-Squeak-3-1415-td119812.html

Edgar




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Casey Ransberger
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
+1, let's not call it 3.11.

3.12 is a fine version number if we don't call it 4.1. Ambiguity is evil.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>



--
Ron

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Casey Ransberger
It dawns on me: Are the VMs available on the download page at
squeak.org closure enabled? If not, is there any reason not to replace
them in advance of a Trunk release? It would be a shame if we forgot
about this step:)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

David T. Lewis
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:03:05AM -0800, Ronald Spengler wrote:
> It dawns on me: Are the VMs available on the download page at
> squeak.org closure enabled? If not, is there any reason not to replace
> them in advance of a Trunk release? It would be a shame if we forgot
> about this step:)

Yes, they are closure enabled.

Dave

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

David T. Lewis
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 02:30:12PM -0500, David T. Lewis wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:03:05AM -0800, Ronald Spengler wrote:
> > It dawns on me: Are the VMs available on the download page at
> > squeak.org closure enabled? If not, is there any reason not to replace
> > them in advance of a Trunk release? It would be a shame if we forgot
> > about this step:)
>
> Yes, they are closure enabled.

Apologies, I spoke too soon. These links do need to be updated.

Dave


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Chris Muller-3
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
> 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..

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Towards a Trunk Release [help needed]

Ken G. Brown
At 4:58 PM -0600 2/20/10, Chris Muller apparently wrote:

> > 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..

And the text selection works incorrectly last time I looked.

<http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7439>

Ken G. Brown

12