[squeak-dev] [ANN] A new anniversary without 3.10

>
> The closest available candidates for 3.10 are Ralph Johnson and Edgar
> himself.
>
> However perhaps Andreas was meaning to spur a discussion of having a
> more permanent release manager.  I'm going to assume that was the case
> and offer my opinion.
>
> I'm all for someone volunteering to be a long term release manager.
> However the pool of available reasonable applicants seems rather small.
> I would like to suggest a compromise measure.  Let's continue as we have
> been with a new release team for each release (possibly built from
> previous release teams) with a release team leader specific to each
> release.
>
> However I would like to suggest that the Board pick one of its members
> to serve in a supervisory capacity over the entire release process.  I
> don't see this as a job with much work most of the time.  It would
> largely be composed of watching the progress of current release(s),
> offering assistance where needed, and prodding the various involved
> parties when necessary.
>
> Now the Board technically only serves for a single year at a time and so
> this 'release supervisor' could change from year to year.  But it's not
> commonly the case that the Board membership changes completely each
> year, so in practice it is possible for such a person to serve in this
> capacity for multiple years and versions.
>
> Ken
>
> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 13:29 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> writes:
>> Andreas> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>> This would be my question as well.  What *is* missing?
>> Andreas> Short answer? The release manager.
>>
>> OK, but that release manager will be asking the same question
>> I'm now asking.  So how do I get the answer?
>>
>> If Edgar is complaining, there must be a specific thing he thinks is missing.
>> That's what I want to know, so I can come up to speed on the issue.
>>
>> In other words, how do we know we aren't done with 3.10 yet?
>>
>> And yes, this *is* your elected board trying to get a handle on the problem.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>

> Andreas Raab a écrit :
>> 3) Suitable welcome information inside the release. Check out
>> http://ftp.squeak.org/3.6/Squeak3.6-5429-full.zip for what this can
>> look like - in 3.6 there is a whole bunch of interesting stuff to
>> explore which makes it interesting and engaging (and sadly I will add
>> that 3.6 full is *smaller* than 3.10 basic). [some might consider
>> this point finished and I wouldn't hold the release because of it but
>> it seems very hard these days to explain to anyone who downloads
>> Squeak what's cool about it]
>
> +1
>
> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was on
> 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots of
> things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull grey
> background with a few windows opened on technical text, details of
> last updates... it could not be more different.

> A supportive community pulling in the direction of a release.  Instead,
> there is a fragmented community who want many different things, arguably
> few of which are suitable for the coherent, image-based exquisite
> personal computing platform which tempted so many of us into Smalltalk
> in the first place.  This makes the release manager's job so hard that
> it is a job nobody wants to take - it's a poisoned chalice.  Whoever
> produces the next release of Squeak will get more criticism than praise,
> because some people's favourite features will have been left out of the
> image while others' least favourite features will have come in.
>
> Anyone want the job?
>
> - Peter

> I'm using 3.8 as my example of a good release.  For 3.10 we need to
>
> 1.  Populate any incomplete platform support directories.
>
> 2.  Delete temporary files (note the wget-log files).
>
> 3.  Fix the 3.10 release zip:
>
> currently while the zip file itself is properly named
> Squeak3.10-7159-basic.zip the contents of the file are named
>
> Squeak3dot10.7159.changes
> Squeak3dot10.7159.image
>
> The zip should be recreated with consistent naming.
>
> 4.  Update the Squeak.org website to reflect 3.10 as the current stable
> release.
>
> 5.  I feel I'm forgetting something but I can't think of anything else
> at the moment.
>
>> Who can do it?
>
> Who 'can' or who 'should'?  I guess at this point really it's a matter
> of 'can'.  Can for most of the steps includes just about any recent
> release team member (including most of 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10) and all
> box-admins team members including myself.
>
> In the interest of expediency I'm willing to do as much as possible
> myself if Edgar wouldn't be insulted by my further interference.  I can
> take care of steps 1 (with assistance from VM developers), 2, 3, and
> maybe even 4 although I will probably need to coordinate with Janko or
> other webteam members.  And I guess I could even take care of 5 if I
> remember what it is. ;)

> Andreas Raab a écrit :
>> 3) Suitable welcome information inside the release. Check out
>> http://ftp.squeak.org/3.6/Squeak3.6-5429-full.zip for what this can
>> look like - in 3.6 there is a whole bunch of interesting stuff to
>> explore which makes it interesting and engaging (and sadly I will add
>> that 3.6 full is *smaller* than 3.10 basic). [some might consider
>> this point finished and I wouldn't hold the release because of it but
>> it seems very hard these days to explain to anyone who downloads
>> Squeak what's cool about it]
>
> +1
>
> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was on
> 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots of
> things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull grey
> background with a few windows opened on technical text, details of
> last updates... it could not be more different.
>
> Stef

> Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>> Andreas Raab a écrit :
>>> 3) Suitable welcome information inside the release. Check out
>>> http://ftp.squeak.org/3.6/Squeak3.6-5429-full.zip for what this can
>>> look like - in 3.6 there is a whole bunch of interesting stuff to
>>> explore which makes it interesting and engaging (and sadly I will add
>>> that 3.6 full is *smaller* than 3.10 basic). [some might consider
>>> this point finished and I wouldn't hold the release because of it but
>>> it seems very hard these days to explain to anyone who downloads
>>> Squeak what's cool about it]
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was on
>> 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots of
>> things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull grey
>> background with a few windows opened on technical text, details of
>> last updates... it could not be more different.
>>
>> Stef
> Thats the whole point of derivative images such as Fun-Squeak or
> Squeak-dev image. Its horses for courses.
>
> Those of us who want to actually use squeak for something in particular
> find unloading packages harder than loading them.
> So I support the goal of trimming down the main image (though its still
> a bit fat)
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>

>> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was on
>> 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots of
>> things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull grey
>> background with a few windows opened on technical text, details of
>> last updates... it could not be more different.
>>
> Thats the whole point of derivative images such as Fun-Squeak or
> Squeak-dev image. Its horses for courses.
>
> Those of us who want to actually use squeak for something in particular
> find unloading packages harder than loading them.
> So I support the goal of trimming down the main image (though its still
> a bit fat)

> Keith Hodges wrote:
>>> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was  
>>> on 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots  
>>> of things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull  
>>> grey background with a few windows opened on technical text,  
>>> details of last updates... it could not be more different.
>>>
>> Thats the whole point of derivative images such as Fun-Squeak or  
>> Squeak-dev image. Its horses for courses.
>> Those of us who want to actually use squeak for something in  
>> particular find unloading packages harder than loading them.
>> So I support the goal of trimming down the main image (though its  
>> still a bit fat)
>
> Then how come that 3.10 basic is larger than 3.6 full? Where is the  
> "trimming" in that? Isn't it much more accurate to say that the fun  
> bits have been replaced with boring bits? A quick comparison between  
> 3.6 and 3.10 shows that games, speech and 3d are gone, and traits,  
> monticello and universes have been added (there are probably more  
> but those are obvious major differences).

> To me the point is not how many packages are there, it is about making
> the new user aware of the existence of what is in the image, and to do
> it warmfully and playfully.
>
> The packages still delivered in 3.10 are enough to provide a rich
> interactive introduction to Squeak. That is what is missing: welcoming
> the new user.
>
>
> Stef