[V3dot9] new 3.9 category for SM

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

[V3dot9] new 3.9 category for SM

Andrew Chambers
from
[V3dot9] Re: New PI with postscripts/preamble etc

 >
 >> Yup, a while back:
 >>     http://map.squeak.org/categoriestree
 >>
 >> I can rename it to 3.9 if you wish (does not affect anything).
 >
 > please

Please, please DON'T just rename category Squeak3.9-alpha to Squeak3.9.

Doing so could give the uninitiated end-user the false security that all
the packages in category Squeak3.9 have been tested, blessed and work
with squeak3.9 (which they might/probably do?).

So instead, can you please keep the Squeak3.9-alpha category and create
a new Squeak3.9 category - when 3.9 is released. So initially the
Squeak3.9 category will be empty until people register their packages on
squeakmap under the squeak3.9 category.

By the way, thanks for all your hard work.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [V3dot9] new 3.9 category for SM

Göran Krampe
Hi!

Andrew Chambers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> from
> [V3dot9] Re: New PI with postscripts/preamble etc
>
>  >
>  >> Yup, a while back:
>  >>     http://map.squeak.org/categoriestree
>  >>
>  >> I can rename it to 3.9 if you wish (does not affect anything).
>  >
>  > please
>
> Please, please DON'T just rename category Squeak3.9-alpha to Squeak3.9.
>
> Doing so could give the uninitiated end-user the false security that all
> the packages in category Squeak3.9 have been tested, blessed and work
> with squeak3.9 (which they might/probably do?).
>
> So instead, can you please keep the Squeak3.9-alpha category and create
> a new Squeak3.9 category - when 3.9 is released. So initially the
> Squeak3.9 category will be empty until people register their packages on
> squeakmap under the squeak3.9 category.
>
> By the way, thanks for all your hard work.

Hmmm, this "issue" has been discussed before - though I am unsure about
what conclusion was made.
If I keep the alpha category - we will end up with lots of alpha/beta
categories, which I probably can't remove because packages and releases
will still refer to them.

I understand your objection "in theory" though. Perhaps we could
introduce a new 3.9 and then eventually remove the alpha category and
simply move those packages still left in there to the 3.9 category (or
just drop them)?

regards, Göran

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [V3dot9] new 3.9 category for SM

Andrew Chambers
[hidden email] wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Andrew Chambers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> from
>> [V3dot9] Re: New PI with postscripts/preamble etc
>>
>>  >
>>  >> Yup, a while back:
>>  >>     http://map.squeak.org/categoriestree
>>  >>
>>  >> I can rename it to 3.9 if you wish (does not affect anything).
>>  >
>>  > please
>>
>> Please, please DON'T just rename category Squeak3.9-alpha to Squeak3.9.
>>
>> Doing so could give the uninitiated end-user the false security that all
>> the packages in category Squeak3.9 have been tested, blessed and work
>> with squeak3.9 (which they might/probably do?).
>>
>> So instead, can you please keep the Squeak3.9-alpha category and create
>> a new Squeak3.9 category - when 3.9 is released. So initially the
>> Squeak3.9 category will be empty until people register their packages on
>> squeakmap under the squeak3.9 category.
>>
>> By the way, thanks for all your hard work.
>>    
>
> Hmmm, this "issue" has been discussed before - though I am unsure about
> what conclusion was made.
> If I keep the alpha category - we will end up with lots of alpha/beta
> categories, which I probably can't remove because packages and releases
> will still refer to them.
>
> I understand your objection "in theory" though. Perhaps we could
> introduce a new 3.9 and then eventually remove the alpha category and
> simply move those packages still left in there to the 3.9 category (or
> just drop them)?
>
> regards, Göran
>  
I go with the new 3.9 category - which could be "marketed" to just
contain packages which the maintainers have tested and blessed to work
with the squeak 3.9 final.

I agree that the obsolete Squeak3.9-alpha category only be kept around
for a time limited period. During this time period, package maintainers
would have ample opportunity to upgrade their package releases from
alpha to final. At the end of said time period I think that any alpha
packages still left, should be dropped NOT automatically rolled forward.

How long should this time period be? - 6 months, 1 year - you choose.

But IMHO I would like to see the squeakmap Squeak3.9 (final) category to
only include quality blessed packages, not alpha packages that may or
may not work.

Andrew

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [V3dot9] new 3.9 category for SM

Göran Krampe
Hi!

Andrew Chambers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I go with the new 3.9 category - which could be "marketed" to just
> contain packages which the maintainers have tested and blessed to work
> with the squeak 3.9 final.
>
> I agree that the obsolete Squeak3.9-alpha category only be kept around
> for a time limited period. During this time period, package maintainers
> would have ample opportunity to upgrade their package releases from
> alpha to final. At the end of said time period I think that any alpha
> packages still left, should be dropped NOT automatically rolled forward.
>
> How long should this time period be? - 6 months, 1 year - you choose.

1 year is a round figure. We can be slow sometimes. :)

> But IMHO I would like to see the squeakmap Squeak3.9 (final) category to
> only include quality blessed packages, not alpha packages that may or
> may not work.
>
> Andrew

I agree with your view. Ok, I will fix it.

regards, Göran

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [V3dot9] new 3.9 category for SM

Ken Causey-3
I'm confused.  Aren't we mixing two different concepts here?  One being
the image version to which a given package is known to apply.  It just
happens to be that one image version was labelled '3.9alpha'.  The
second concept is the 'quality' (aka Maturity Level) of the individual
package.  In SqueakMap these two concepts are seperate, the first
labelled 'Squeak Version', which includes the choice of
'Squeak3.9-alpha' among others and Maturity level which includes
'Bleeding edge', 'Alpha', 'Beta', etc.  Each package can be labelled
with either or both of these.

Then there is another concept here you seem to want to have applied to
packages which is some sort of official 'blessing' of the package
relative to how well it works in a given image version.  This is
something else entirely, and I'm not sure something that can be easily
defined.

Ken

On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 19:45 +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Andrew Chambers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I go with the new 3.9 category - which could be "marketed" to just
> > contain packages which the maintainers have tested and blessed to work
> > with the squeak 3.9 final.
> >
> > I agree that the obsolete Squeak3.9-alpha category only be kept around
> > for a time limited period. During this time period, package maintainers
> > would have ample opportunity to upgrade their package releases from
> > alpha to final. At the end of said time period I think that any alpha
> > packages still left, should be dropped NOT automatically rolled forward.
> >
> > How long should this time period be? - 6 months, 1 year - you choose.
>
> 1 year is a round figure. We can be slow sometimes. :)
>
> > But IMHO I would like to see the squeakmap Squeak3.9 (final) category to
> > only include quality blessed packages, not alpha packages that may or
> > may not work.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> I agree with your view. Ok, I will fix it.
>
> regards, Gran
>
>



signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [V3dot9] new 3.9 category for SM

stéphane ducasse-2
I think that you are right.

On 17 août 06, at 21:10, Ken Causey wrote:

> I'm confused.  Aren't we mixing two different concepts here?  One  
> being
> the image version to which a given package is known to apply.  It just
> happens to be that one image version was labelled '3.9alpha'.  The
> second concept is the 'quality' (aka Maturity Level) of the individual
> package.  In SqueakMap these two concepts are seperate, the first
> labelled 'Squeak Version', which includes the choice of
> 'Squeak3.9-alpha' among others and Maturity level which includes
> 'Bleeding edge', 'Alpha', 'Beta', etc.  Each package can be labelled
> with either or both of these.
>
> Then there is another concept here you seem to want to have applied to
> packages which is some sort of official 'blessing' of the package
> relative to how well it works in a given image version.  This is
> something else entirely, and I'm not sure something that can be easily
> defined.
>
> Ken
>
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 19:45 +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Andrew Chambers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I go with the new 3.9 category - which could be "marketed" to just
>>> contain packages which the maintainers have tested and blessed to  
>>> work
>>> with the squeak 3.9 final.
>>>
>>> I agree that the obsolete Squeak3.9-alpha category only be kept  
>>> around
>>> for a time limited period. During this time period, package  
>>> maintainers
>>> would have ample opportunity to upgrade their package releases from
>>> alpha to final. At the end of said time period I think that any  
>>> alpha
>>> packages still left, should be dropped NOT automatically rolled  
>>> forward.
>>>
>>> How long should this time period be? - 6 months, 1 year - you  
>>> choose.
>>
>> 1 year is a round figure. We can be slow sometimes. :)
>>
>>> But IMHO I would like to see the squeakmap Squeak3.9 (final)  
>>> category to
>>> only include quality blessed packages, not alpha packages that  
>>> may or
>>> may not work.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>
>> I agree with your view. Ok, I will fix it.
>>
>> regards, Gran
>>
>>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [V3dot9] new 3.9 category for SM

Göran Krampe
In reply to this post by Ken Causey-3
Hi!

Ken Causey <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm confused.  Aren't we mixing two different concepts here?  One being
> the image version to which a given package is known to apply.  It just
> happens to be that one image version was labelled '3.9alpha'.  The
> second concept is the 'quality' (aka Maturity Level) of the individual
> package.  In SqueakMap these two concepts are seperate, the first
> labelled 'Squeak Version', which includes the choice of
> 'Squeak3.9-alpha' among others and Maturity level which includes
> 'Bleeding edge', 'Alpha', 'Beta', etc.  Each package can be labelled
> with either or both of these.
>
> Then there is another concept here you seem to want to have applied to
> packages which is some sort of official 'blessing' of the package
> relative to how well it works in a given image version.  This is
> something else entirely, and I'm not sure something that can be easily
> defined.
>
> Ken

Well, one could argue that if a release is marked as "3.8" it implies
that it has been at least smoke tested in 3.8.
If a release is smoke tested in a 3.9a image - and marked as such - it
could be interpreted like "it worked at least once in 3.9a - it could
work in the released 3.9 or a later 3.9a too, but it has *not* been
tested".

So even though everything you write is true (Maturity Level is an
orthogonal concept etc) - I still think the approach Andrew describes is
worth following. Until 3.9 is released you should only use the 3.9a
category (and in hindsight I should have waited with creating 3.9 until
the actual 3.9 release - but what the hell).

regards, Göran

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [V3dot9] new 3.9 category for SM

Ken Causey-3
Yes indeed, I misunderstood.  Somehow I missed the idea that changing
the label would result in a package automatically being labelled as
working in 3.9 when it had only been tested in 3.9alpha.  Sorry about
that.  So yes, probably any alpha, beta, gamma categories need to stick
around for a while.

How about this.  Can you make it so that existing packages/releases with
these labels (Squeak3.9alpha for example) won't have them mysteriously
changed, but that the old image versions will no longer be currently
'active' choices.  In other words they can't be applied to new
packages/releases.  And maybe for the purposes of browsing by category
if you browse for 'Squeak3.9' you see also 'Squeak3.9*' but the
'Squeak3.9alpha' or whatever label should be clearly shown.

Ken

On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 22:12 +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Ken Causey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I'm confused.  Aren't we mixing two different concepts here?  One being
> > the image version to which a given package is known to apply.  It just
> > happens to be that one image version was labelled '3.9alpha'.  The
> > second concept is the 'quality' (aka Maturity Level) of the individual
> > package.  In SqueakMap these two concepts are seperate, the first
> > labelled 'Squeak Version', which includes the choice of
> > 'Squeak3.9-alpha' among others and Maturity level which includes
> > 'Bleeding edge', 'Alpha', 'Beta', etc.  Each package can be labelled
> > with either or both of these.
> >
> > Then there is another concept here you seem to want to have applied to
> > packages which is some sort of official 'blessing' of the package
> > relative to how well it works in a given image version.  This is
> > something else entirely, and I'm not sure something that can be easily
> > defined.
> >
> > Ken
>
> Well, one could argue that if a release is marked as "3.8" it implies
> that it has been at least smoke tested in 3.8.
> If a release is smoke tested in a 3.9a image - and marked as such - it
> could be interpreted like "it worked at least once in 3.9a - it could
> work in the released 3.9 or a later 3.9a too, but it has *not* been
> tested".
>
> So even though everything you write is true (Maturity Level is an
> orthogonal concept etc) - I still think the approach Andrew describes is
> worth following. Until 3.9 is released you should only use the 3.9a
> category (and in hindsight I should have waited with creating 3.9 until
> the actual 3.9 release - but what the hell).
>
> regards, Gran
>



signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment