[squeak-dev] Completing the 3.10 release process

Can I clarify what needs to happen to get us to the point where
everyone is reasonably content that the 3.10 release process is
complete?

My understanding is that the following steps are required:

1) Start with the current image at
http://ftp.squeak.org/3.10/Squeak3.10-7159-basic.zip
2) Optionally, incorporate a small number of fixes (to be agreed)
2) Rename it to Squeak3.10-final-xxxx.zip
4) Produce packages for mac, unix-linux and windows
5) Populate the 3.10 directory with these products
6) Update web site to point to new packages
7) Publish the news on news.squeak.org :-)

I've not seen any evidence (here or in the release team list) that any
of this is being dealt with - if someone is already addressing this, I
apologise for leaping in.

If this isn't being dealt with, and if it really is just a
straightforward admin process, then I'm happy to take this work on. If
there is more to it than is in my list, then let's get it clear, and I
will then do what I can to help complete this process, and give us all
the opportunity to focus on the goals and the work needed to deliver
3.11.

Thanks,
Michael

Many apologies Edgar, while I was composing this email, you updated
the ftp directory and sent your two emails, so there is evidence of
work going on!

I've discussed this very briefly with Edgar off the list, and he has
welcomed my support to finish this work off, so can I ask:
- Does everyone agree that the list of actions in my first email is
correct and complete? (I have already made a note of the additional
requirement to point the image to the correct package universe)
- Does anyone have any issue with me taking this on?



Cheers,
Michael

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:30:56 +0200, Michael Davies wrote:

> I've discussed this very briefly with Edgar off the list, and he has
> welcomed my support to finish this work off, so can I ask:
> - Does everyone agree that the list of actions in my first email is
> correct and complete? (I have already made a note of the additional
> requirement to point the image to the correct package universe)
> - Does anyone have any issue with me taking this on?

I just checked that, in a fresh donwloaded

- http://ftp.squeak.org/3.10/Squeak3.10-7159-basic.zip

the .changes file is surprisingly small. So there's plenty of room for the  
developers' changes :)

Well done, Edgar.

>
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>

On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 12:07 +0100, Michael Davies wrote: I disagree, while this naming convention was used for 3.9 it diverges
from the previous convention and ignores our previous decision to issue
both Basic and Full (or Kitchen Sink) images.  The current filename uses
the correct naming convention.

I appreciate your initiative but could you wait a few days?  I started a
discussion of what would constitute an appropriate release structure and
I would like to give a bit more time for comments.  Assuming I don't get
any more in a few days I guess I will write up my ideas in a more formal
form and request more comments or objections.

On the other hand this is starting to sound like it might take well over
a week.  So I guess you could go ahead and just be prepared to make
further changes later.

Ken

On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 16:30 +0100, Michael Davies wrote:

El 4/8/08 1:04 PM, "Klaus D. Witzel" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> the .changes file is surprisingly small. So there's plenty of room for the
> developers' changes :)
>
> Well done, Edgar.

The .changes should be empty .

I hope I could verify Maurice work for new .sources scheme.

But first we should move several packages out to Monticello repositories.

We could have some check box list and automatic load last know versions of
each Squeaker favorites.

Edgar

>>>>> "Edgar" == Edgar J De Cleene <[hidden email]> writes:

Edgar> El 4/8/08 1:04 PM, "Klaus D. Witzel" <[hidden email]> escribió:

>> the .changes file is surprisingly small. So there's plenty of room for the
>> developers' changes :)
>>
>> Well done, Edgar.

Edgar> The .changes should be empty .

Only if a new .sources exists.  And I'm not sure why we'd need
one, unless *every* new release has a new .sources.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

El 4/8/08 6:54 PM, "Randal L. Schwartz" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> Only if a new .sources exists.  And I'm not sure why we'd need
> one, unless *every* new release has a new .sources.

Yes, you was right.
The point by Ralph is VW have empty changes.
Remember all the troubles start when 3.9 hit the 32mb and Steph and Markus
decide have new sources.
My position on this is 3.10 don't should have new sources because still have
packages not all need or want.
Ideal we should stick to Pavel kernel or to Spoon(this is one of subjects
talked in Monday meetings).
But maybe this is not so near in the future and we need some baby step
before (my position with 3.11)

Edgar

[I'm just adding an item, not related to the issues mentioned earlier in  
this thread]

What happens to the Mantis reports which are addressed/solved by the  
release process?

Must they be marked as closed, others as postphoned, or even as "not  
considered by 3.10" etc?

Just a thought, worth to be mentioned under this thread's subject, IMHO.

/Klaus

El 4/11/08 8:28 AM, "Klaus D. Witzel" <[hidden email]> escribió:

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5975 "History of the 3.10 release"
In image I put a History morph, for people could have a glimpse of how
release evolved from as old as History7124.morph from 20/07/07.

Most items was marked as resolved, as was discussed in release list if my
memory don't fail me.
Some could have feedback and was reopened or marked different

More 3.10 docs in http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5919 The 3.10 release

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5934 List of Mantis issues ready to be
included in 3.10 (not all here go to release for different reasons)

http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5990 Complaints about how 3.10 is going
Here I could say "Ahora es tarde para lagrimas" :=) (too late for tears !)

Edgar

P.S. I just complete some of OS info in ftp directories as requested and
with the info I have until now.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:01:02 +0200, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
The wiki page mentions http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6336 which is  
still open on Mantis. I confirm I can see the patch at work in Damien's  
3.10 based Squeak-dev .images.

Do you want me to check http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5975 against Mantis?

/Klaus

El 4/11/08 2:52 PM, "Klaus D. Witzel" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> The wiki page mentions http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6336 which is
> still open on Mantis. I confirm I can see the patch at work in Damien's
> 3.10 based Squeak-dev .images.
>


If you read the History.morph (no need to go Mantis) found this
So your contribution, marked as 3.9 in Mantis , should be in all 3.10
derivate images from 7125 and newer.

I miss add  a note in Mantis at the time but  send feedback ....

> Do you want me to check http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5975 against Mantis?
>
> /Klaus

I wish (not want !) more needed FIX and ENH from you , this time with
appropriate test showing your fix works and not break any of 2200 plus test
we have now :=)

Edgar

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:59:31 +0200, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

Right, but this is *not* the concern. I just wanted to ask/say something  
about the Mantis report(s) which are not *closed* as part of the  
"completing the 3.10 release process" subject matter.

Will you close http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6336 ?

> I miss add a note in Mantis at the time but send feedback ....
>
>> Do you want me to check http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5975 against  
>> Mantis?
>>
>> /Klaus
>
> I wish (not want !) more needed FIX and ENH from you ,

I try to do what I can :)

> this time with
> appropriate test showing your fix works

I'm sorry that there are none which test Unicode character membership. I  
mentioned that in my mail to the original author and, since he already  
included my patches in the OLPC Squeak release I believe that he had a way  
to validate them.

> and not break any of 2200 plus test we have now :=)
>
> Edgar
>

El 4/11/08 6:00 PM, "Klaus D. Witzel" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> Will you close http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6336 ?
I actualize.

mark as resolved and 3.10 for consistency with other updates

Apologizes by troubles.

Edgar

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:29:17 +0200, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

>
> El 4/11/08 6:00 PM, "Klaus D. Witzel" escribió:
>
>> Will you close http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6336 ?
> I actualize.
>
> mark as resolved and 3.10 for consistency with other updates

Ahh :)

> Apologizes by troubles.

NP :) I think that everybody here appreciates your hard work.

> Edgar
>