Dear Squeakers,
Today I did squeak -version and I was surprised, that is, almost scared that 3.10 VM is still in beta:
mivsek@pingo:~> squeak -version 3.10-1 #1 Thu Apr 10 14:52:07 PDT 2008 gcc 4.1.2 Squeak3.10beta of 22 July 2007 [latest update: #7159] Linux vps2.piumarta.com 2.6.9-023stab044.11-enterprise #1 SMP Sun Sep 30 12:15:39 MSD 2007 i686 GNU/Linux default plugin location: /usr/local/lib/squeak/3.10-1/*.so
Well, after a short chat on IRC I learned that a first line holds the real version, not a second one. But second one is more visible and for sure I'm not the first one to make such a mistake.
So I propose that the version report is more descriptive, like:
VM version: 3.10-1 #1 Thu Apr 10 14:52:07 PDT 2008 gcc 4.1.2 built for image: Squeak3.10beta of 22 July 2007 [latest update: #7159] ...
In my opinion such small improvement wouldn't costs much but will lower the possible confusion quite a lot.
Best regards Janko
Janko Mivšek wrote:
So I propose that the version report is more descriptive, like:
VM version: 3.10-1 #1 Thu Apr 10 14:52:07 PDT 2008 gcc 4.1.2 built for image: Squeak3.10beta of 22 July 2007 [latest update: #7159] ...
I think "built using image: Squeak3.10beta..." would explain the situation better.
-- Jecel
Or I might suggest 'generated using'. However perhaps instead we should simplify the version information. What image was used to generate the C code is only rarely of interest, remove it from the overall version information and add a --verbose-version or the like with the current information, maybe even more.
Ken
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 18:49 -0300, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
Janko Mivšek wrote:
So I propose that the version report is more descriptive, like:
VM version: 3.10-1 #1 Thu Apr 10 14:52:07 PDT 2008 gcc 4.1.2 built for image: Squeak3.10beta of 22 July 2007 [latest update: #7159] ...
I think "built using image: Squeak3.10beta..." would explain the situation better.
-- Jecel
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Janko Mivšek -
Jecel Assumpcao Jr -
Ken Causey