Keith Hodges wrote:
Andreas Raab wrote:
I was just doing some stuff in 3.10 when I decided to try the 3.11 alpha. First of all, can we *please* rename the image to 3.11 instead of 3.10.2 "bc"? The reason being that 1) I've never seen the designation "build candidate" for any software project, and 2) it gets extremely confusing when you have to distinguish "3.10.2" (which works fine) from "3.10.2 bc" (which breaks). Much simpler to call 3.11 alpha what it is: 3.11 alpha.
But it isn't 3.11 alpha. it has no changes to the base image, except what are required to support loading LPF and make a 3.10 base image usable for building production images using Sake/Packages.
It's not "changes to the base image" that make a Squeak release. A Squeak release is to a large extent the (versions of) packages shipped with it. And yes, you can update them individually if you like but there is a release process behind the included packages as well. If there wasn't, we wouldn't include them to begin with. And the list of new/updated packages in the welcome window alone is enough to give this a 3.11 designation:
* SqueakMap - catalog/categories browsers * Universes * Installer * SUnit * Sake * Packages * Tasks * SystemEditor * Monticello 1.5 including: - PackageInfo - MonticelloConfigurations - File support - Orphanage - AtomicLoading (not enabled by default)
I mean, seriously, this is a ton of stuff! And it's quite a bit different from 3.10 and it *does* include changes to the base image. Given the amount of changes, that image really should not be called 3.10 any longer; you are only creating confusion by insisting this be called 3.10.
The difference with this process and previous releases, is that this release is planned, there is a design, the tasks are in place, they just need fleshing out. (at least thats the theory), so when these tasks are ready and applied for the first time, that is when we call things alpha.
Then call the prior phase development, pre-alpha or whatever else you like. But given the amount of modification I don't think you should continue to refer to it as 3.10.
The "process" involves defining sets of tasks to create deliverables in parallel. The application of fixes will be what makes things potentially unstable so I dont want to over do it with too many so hopefully we wont stay in alpha too long.
3.10.2bc -> 3.11tc -> 3.11rc -> 3.11-test -> 3.11-light -> 3.11-fun (build0 - nofixes) -> 3.11tc -> 3.11rc -> 3.11-test -> 3.11-light -> 3.11-fun (build1 - 50 fixes) etc.
I am working on tasks to load fixes, http://bugs.squeak.org/installer_export.php?project=Squeak only went live yesterday. I also started harvesting edgars SqueakLightII script to make a few more things unloadable to generate a 3.11-light etc.
All of which is great. Though it would be good if you would communicate about this more often so that there is some visibility of the process.
(no I won't call it 3.10.2 bc ;-) is that apparently Monticello got badly broken.
I didnt have this problem, I built an image on it so I have no idea what is going on.
Of course, right that moment Squeaksource goes down :-) Well, in any case, when it's back up, try this. Point your MC to this repository:
MCHttpRepository location: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D' user: '' password: ''
And try to load or browse "Balloon3D-Constants-ar.4.mcz". When I do this, I die with the trace that I sent. However, Balloon3D-Constants-ar.5.mcz which was published from loading the above into 3.10 will load fine. I think this is quite repeatable.
Cheers, - Andreas