The production VM from the squeak.org download page is from last August and seems to be crashing.
Does anyone know where to download the latest 64-bit cog spur linux vm?
Thanks.
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Chris Muller ma.chris.m@gmail.com wrote:
The production VM from the squeak.org download page is from last August and seems to be crashing.
Does anyone know where to download the latest 64-bit cog spur linux vm?
Thanks.
https://bintray.com/opensmalltalk/vm/cog/_latestVersion#files
which is linked from
https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/
(maybe we should link to that on squeak.org too)
- Bert -
Thanks. 5.0-201608171728 has been pretty stable, but I have a software demo this Friday and would like to use the most recommended VM for stability.
That link is to the daily builds. I was wary to automatically consider the latest as the most-stable, since the VM development is now an active collaboration of developers on github.
Is it safe to use the latest? Or, if not, is there a blessed version since 5.0-201608171728?
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Chris Muller ma.chris.m@gmail.com wrote:
The production VM from the squeak.org download page is from last August and seems to be crashing.
Does anyone know where to download the latest 64-bit cog spur linux vm?
Thanks.
https://bintray.com/opensmalltalk/vm/cog/_latestVersion#files
which is linked from
https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/
(maybe we should link to that on squeak.org too)
- Bert -
On 01.02.2017, at 21:25, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:
Is it safe to use the latest? Or, if not, is there a blessed version since 5.0-201608171728?
nope :(
Though, if you analyze the commits, they are essentially bugfixes. You'll find not so many new features: - some backports from Pharo VM (rather solid and/or protected by some #ifdef) - the Lowcode from Ronie which is essentially separated from the rest of the VM - the Sista stuff from Clement
The new garbage collector from Eliot is in a separate branch
So maybe the VM are not blessed, but I don't expect less stability than the "officially" blessed. Anyway, do we care of "official" blessing? What we need is more testing rather than more blessing, otherwise how could we certify anything?
Of course, it may seem cavalier to ask production guys to be the beta-tester, but you know that nothing help more...
2017-02-01 21:51 GMT+01:00 Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de:
On 01.02.2017, at 21:25, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:
Is it safe to use the latest? Or, if not, is there a blessed version since 5.0-201608171728?
nope :(
So maybe the VM are not blessed, but I don't expect less stability than the "officially" blessed.
Okay, that's what I really wanted to know. Thanks, I'll upgrade to today's built version.
Anyway, do we care of "official" blessing?
Like you said Eliot is in a separate branch with the new GC'er. I assume he created a separate branch because the changes are bound to cause breakage for a while. I wanted to know whether any similar experiments in the main branch could impose similar risks.
What we need is more testing rather than more blessing, otherwise how could we certify anything?
More testing of which version? New versions are popping out every day, upgrading becomes something done when there's a reason to, not because there's a new version. Within 24 hours of upgrading, it'll be just another old version -- unless it was blessed.
Some situations need to emphasize stability, it seems like it would be nice to have a baseline version that is known not to have have any halts or debugging stuff or experimental stuff, and so it could be more easily accepted into wide usage and testing in those production situations.
Of course, it may seem cavalier to ask production guys to be the beta-tester, but you know that nothing help more...
2017-02-01 21:51 GMT+01:00 Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de:
On 01.02.2017, at 21:25, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:
Is it safe to use the latest? Or, if not, is there a blessed version since 5.0-201608171728?
nope :(
Chris,
My impression is that going for a 32-bit cog spur linux vm is safer in your case.
--Hannes
On 2/2/17, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:
So maybe the VM are not blessed, but I don't expect less stability than the "officially" blessed.
Okay, that's what I really wanted to know. Thanks, I'll upgrade to today's built version.
Anyway, do we care of "official" blessing?
Like you said Eliot is in a separate branch with the new GC'er. I assume he created a separate branch because the changes are bound to cause breakage for a while. I wanted to know whether any similar experiments in the main branch could impose similar risks.
What we need is more testing rather than more blessing, otherwise how could we certify anything?
More testing of which version? New versions are popping out every day, upgrading becomes something done when there's a reason to, not because there's a new version. Within 24 hours of upgrading, it'll be just another old version -- unless it was blessed.
Some situations need to emphasize stability, it seems like it would be nice to have a baseline version that is known not to have have any halts or debugging stuff or experimental stuff, and so it could be more easily accepted into wide usage and testing in those production situations.
Of course, it may seem cavalier to ask production guys to be the beta-tester, but you know that nothing help more...
2017-02-01 21:51 GMT+01:00 Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de:
On 01.02.2017, at 21:25, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:
Is it safe to use the latest? Or, if not, is there a blessed version since 5.0-201608171728?
nope :(
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bert Freudenberg -
Chris Muller -
Chris Muller -
H. Hirzel -
Nicolas Cellier -
Tobias Pape