3.11 artifacts observations and a little bit of curiosity.
Hi Keith,
Yea for the appearence of 081214 and 081216 build candidates. Thank you.
I am still playing with it. There are some early observations and questions.
Why is it a 3.10.2 bc and not a 3.10.3? Ken finalized the former and it should probably stay that way. So people using the new know its new.
I will also note that the long redundant naming gives my poor OS9.1 mac the fits when I try to unzip it. A small but useful (to me) favor would be to pick a shorter way of naming. I vote +1 on keeping a date relevant name. yymmvv naming might serve well as it does for Damien's releases.
My curiosity notices that these images weigh in at 13.7 and 14 MB down from the 7179 images 17M. and the zips are about 7M compared to 8.8M for 7179.
Puck says: "Shazam| How'd he do that? Maybe we can get loading and unpacking squeak to actually give you back space on your hard drive."
My curiosity wants to know too. Anything we should know about been left out?
Anyway, I want to acknowledge your spirit and courage for responding to the challenge with such little delay.
Puck again: "Shazam! How did he do that?" Curiosity: "I wonder if he got Bob the builder working?"
Good work. Good work. Good work.
Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace
Jerome Peace wrote:
3.11 artifacts observations and a little bit of curiosity.
Hi Keith,
Yea for the appearence of 081214 and 081216 build candidates. Thank you.
I am still playing with it. There are some early observations and questions.
Why is it a 3.10.2 bc and not a 3.10.3? Ken finalized the former and it should probably stay that way. So people using the new know its new.
Because I don't feel I have the authority to say "this is 3.10.3", it has more in it than just a couple of maintenance fixes on top of 3.10.2.
I will also note that the long redundant naming gives my poor OS9.1 mac the fits when I try to unzip it. A small but useful (to me) favor would be to pick a shorter way of naming. I vote +1 on keeping a date relevant name.
Sq instead of Squeak was suggested.
yymmvv naming might serve well as it does for Damien's releases.
I think date and time is needed as a convention for an automated build system (we could loose a $-) that might run more frequently, and potentially distributed. If you have any better ideas for naming then I am open to ideas. I put the timestamp as a prefix to aid sorting, and to free the suffix up for other uses. (Damiens use of a date in the suffix overlaps with version .2.image .3.image etc).
My curiosity notices that these images weigh in at 13.7 and 14 MB down from the 7179 images 17M. and the zips are about 7M compared to 8.8M for 7179.
Ran all the cleanUp methods before saving which includes purging the SqueakMap data, which is probably 2Mb.
Puck says: "Shazam| How'd he do that? Maybe we can get loading and unpacking squeak to actually give you back space on your hard drive."
My curiosity wants to know too. Anything we should know about been left out?
Nothing yet.
Anyway, I want to acknowledge your spirit and courage for responding to the challenge with such little delay.
Puck again: "Shazam! How did he do that?" Curiosity: "I wonder if he got Bob the builder working?"
Not yet :-(
Good work. Good work. Good work.
Thanks!
Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace
Keith
So, why not call it 3.11bc or 3.11.0bc? You do definitely have the authority to use that name.
-Chris
Chris Cunningham wrote:
So, why not call it 3.11bc or 3.11.0bc? You do definitely have the authority to use that name.
-Chris
Because it is an image derived from 3.10 for building stuff that works in 3.10. The packages definitions/universe etc that you would expect to work in this image are the 3.10 ones, not the 3.11 ones.
Keith
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Chris Cunningham -
Jerome Peace -
Keith Hodges