Andreas Raab wrote:
Hi -
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 is designated 'beta' because subject to last minute snags (ahem!) it should be release quality. I used to call it 3.10.2LPF, We could call it build-base, or anything you like except 3.11alpha.
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.
In the alpha you will see, classes moved to different places to tidy things up, some stuff removed, some stuff renamed, deprecated methods removed etc. I have already written that bit.
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.
Anyway, enough of that. What I noticed in 3.11 alpha
It isnt 3.11 alpha, its a package of the tools I have been using to produce production images for almost a year, with the addition of Sake/Packages
(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.
Keith