Folks -
I am now "clearing my desk" prefatory to finally getting Henrik's Modules out (sorry, I just got swamped a month ago). One thing that remains to be completed is to release 3.1, but as I reflect on this, I wonder if we mightn't just put 3.2 into gamma status, let people beat on it for a week, and release THAT instead. Here are some reasons:
It has a bunch of cool new stuff not in 3.1 It seems pretty stable If has if anything more fixes than 3.1 right now We are (honest ;-) about to enter a real test-pilot period
I don't care a lot one way or the other, but I think this would be a bit less work for me as well.
How to make the decision? Well, assume I've decided to do this, and only send mail if you are strongly opposed. If no one complains in the next day or two, that's what I'll do.
Thanks - Dan
Hi Gang, Why not release 3.2gamma as 3.1, assuming that 3.2gamma does *NOT* contain Henrik's Modules stuff. Then, 3.2 can be the first release with the Modules code. That way, there's a clean separation between the modules and non-modules world. Cheers, Roger.....
Dan Ingalls wrote:
Folks -
I am now "clearing my desk" prefatory to finally getting Henrik's Modules out (sorry, I just got swamped a month ago). One thing that remains to be completed is to release 3.1, but as I reflect on this, I wonder if we mightn't just put 3.2 into gamma status, let people beat on it for a week, and release THAT instead. Here are some reasons:
It has a bunch of cool new stuff not in 3.1 It seems pretty stable If has if anything more fixes than 3.1 right now We are (honest ;-) about to enter a real test-pilot periodI don't care a lot one way or the other, but I think this would be a bit less work for me as well.
How to make the decision? Well, assume I've decided to do this, and only send mail if you are strongly opposed. If no one complains in the next day or two, that's what I'll do.
Thanks - Dan
My two cents: This sounds okay to me. (even though I spent some time recommending changesets to move from 3.2alpha to 3.1beta :) )
The problem with having a longish beta cycle is that it has a mixture of fixes from the alpha version, and you run the risk of a few of the fixes relying on code that's only in the alpha version, and the fact that fewer people are testing the beta version. So the alpha version may actually be more stable, as you say.
It sounds like you're going to name the new version "3.2"? (So that we're skipping a 3.1 final, kind of like we skipped 2.9 final.) Or you could just name it "3.1". Either is okay with me. :)
- Doug Way dway@riskmetrics.com
Dan Ingalls wrote:
Folks -
I am now "clearing my desk" prefatory to finally getting Henrik's Modules out (sorry, I just got swamped a month ago). One thing that remains to be completed is to release 3.1, but as I reflect on this, I wonder if we mightn't just put 3.2 into gamma status, let people beat on it for a week, and release THAT instead. Here are some reasons:
It has a bunch of cool new stuff not in 3.1 It seems pretty stable If has if anything more fixes than 3.1 right now We are (honest ;-) about to enter a real test-pilot periodI don't care a lot one way or the other, but I think this would be a bit less work for me as well.
How to make the decision? Well, assume I've decided to do this, and only send mail if you are strongly opposed. If no one complains in the next day or two, that's what I'll do.
Thanks - Dan
Doug Way dway@riskmetrics.com wrote...
My two cents: This sounds okay to me. (even though I spent some time recommending changesets to move from 3.2alpha to 3.1beta :) )
Yes, and I integrating them. I apologize on behalf of, er, well, all of us.
The problem with having a longish beta cycle is that it has a mixture of fixes from the alpha version, and you run the risk of a few of the fixes relying on code that's only in the alpha version, and the fact that fewer people are testing the beta version. So the alpha version may actually be more stable, as you say.
It sounds like you're going to name the new version "3.2"? (So that we're skipping a 3.1 final, kind of like we skipped 2.9 final.) Or you could just name it "3.1". Either is okay with me. :)
No, I would name it 3.2, since that's what it is. It's beginning to look like I have a thing about even numbers. (Goes all the way back to ST-72, -74, -76, -78 and ST-80 ;-).
- D
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Dan Ingalls wrote: [snip]
No, I would name it 3.2, since that's what it is. It's beginning to look like I have a thing about even numbers. (Goes all the way back to ST-72, -74, -76, -78 and ST-80 ;-).
Isn't the Linux kernal versioning scheme something like, if even, it's stable; if odd, BOOM?
Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bijan Parsia -
Dan Ingalls -
Doug Way -
Duane Maxwell -
Roger Vossler