Am 16.07.2005 um 07:58 schrieb Michael Rueger:

Doug Way wrote:

...

And Ken is probably right that perhaps we should bump up the version number. 3.8.1? Hmm, well certainly we were going to do that if we added any updates, although in this case it's simply a fixed image with the same update number (and same source code), so it's a close call.

I would vote against a version number change, but rather change the name of the download file or something? Or, we could release an update to fix the proxy problem, so the image will be 3.8 6666. There is already a pending update (the positionOf... fix) plus possibly Goran's FatSocketStream.

And this could make sense:

http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=1382

0001382: 3.8 performance regression - ByteSymbol>>#hash Description Magma's peak commit rate in 3.8 dropped from 24 per second in 3.7 to 18 per second in 3.8. I traced the cause of this problem to ByteSymbol>>#hash. Because of the new String hierarchy to support Multi-byte Strings, it is no longer benefitting from the primitive for calculating its hash that used to be in String>>#stringHash:initialHash:. It was moved to ByteString but not to ByteSymbol so now, ByteSymbol is inheriting the slow one from String which, per the comment, works for WideStrings too.

This fix simply restores the method with the primitive call that regular [Byte]Symbols have always benefitted from.

I added this to 3.9a already, and I use it it my work-image for a week now.

Marcus

Questions: How do we make these files appear on the sqf server? Who can rebuild a windows package of full?

And then there is the 3.8.1 question: there are lots of things (e.g. 0001532: Remove some VMMaker methods to package) that I would like to have in 3.8 if I would continue to use it. Which I will not, I will move on to 3.9 next week.

The question is now how to handle 3.8 vs. 3.9? The best would be to have a mantis like system that would funnel all approved items for 3.9a to the maintainer of 3.8 for possible inclusion. We do not have this system, and I am reluctant to let all the reports open on mantis because they might be added to 3.8 or maybe not. So I think I will close all items on mantis that are in 3.9, everything else would get unmanagable, I think. (there is already too much stuff there).

Marcus

Am 16.07.2005 um 16:35 schrieb Marcus Denker:

Am 16.07.2005 um 00:23 schrieb Doug Way:

...

Bruce, did you happen to put together the mac & win Full bundles?

If you have a moment, could you update them with the fixed image that Marcus put out on the ftp site? The current image in the bundles is basically broken as far as internet access goes (a proxy is set in the image).

I put it here (it's not yet on the ftp site, I need to check again how to upload to that)

http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~denker/temp/Squeak3.8-6665-full.zip

and I updated the .dmg, too:

http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~denker/temp/Squeak3.8-6665-MacOS-Full.dmg.gz

Marcus

Hi,

Sorry for the delay. I've already updated ftp.squeak.org, and, finally, managed to update st.cs.uiuc.edu. There is something very odd about the disk there.

The only package which needs special care is the Mac one. Since we use a disk image (.dmg) file, I think, that only the mac can generate this.

The .zip files for windows I have, for years, built on unix or linux systems. The unix/linux .tar files are also built on unix systems. I am happy to do this, I just got overloaded and it is taking me now more than a week to go through the "important" email that collected.

cheers

bruce

On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 12:04:41AM -0400, Doug Way wrote:

On Jul 28, 2005, at 2:18 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:

...

Questions: How do we make these files appear on the sqf server? Who can rebuild a windows package of full?

Looks like Bruce just fixed these... I verified myself.

As to Bruce's "meta problem" of not having a backup person to handle uploading important items when Bruce is away... perhaps the box-admins could be backups? (Which I think are Cees, Ken and possibly Goran.) I assume the ftp.squeak.org machine is a "box" they have access to. :)

(In this case it was a little trickier because we also needed someone to build the windows package, and it's possible that none of the box admins are Windows squeakers... so it probably didn't get done because it wasn't easy for one person to do it all.)

...

And then there is the 3.8.1 question: there are lots of things (e.g. 0001532: Remove some VMMaker methods to package) that I would like to have in 3.8 if I would continue to use it. Which I will not, I will move on to 3.9 next week.

The question is now how to handle 3.8 vs. 3.9? The best would be to have a mantis like system that would funnel all approved items for 3.9a to the maintainer of 3.8 for possible inclusion. We do not have this system, and I am reluctant to let all the reports open on mantis because they might be added to 3.8 or maybe not. So I think I will close all items on mantis that are in 3.9, everything else would get unmanagable, I think. (there is already too much stuff there).

Good question... I guess it's really up to Michael & whoever wants to be in charge of 3.8, which fixes should be added to 3.8.

I'd guess the number of items added to 3.8.1+ is pretty small compared with 3.9, it wouldn't make sense to keep the mantis items open just because they're not in 3.8 (but are in 3.9).

• Doug