It seems like a lot of people are using 3.9 already. Which raises a basic question, should I upgrade?
How stable is 3.9. Are there a lot of backward compatibility issues? Are there a lot of things that still need to be ported to 3.9, or is it pretty transparent?
-Rich-
And is there somewhere we can find out what packages are default now? Like would I need to install the real-closures package or is that the default now?
From: Rich Warren rwmlist@gmail.com Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: 3.9 stability, etc. Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 21:28:52 -1000
It seems like a lot of people are using 3.9 already. Which raises a basic question, should I upgrade?
How stable is 3.9. Are there a lot of backward compatibility issues? Are there a lot of things that still need to be ported to 3.9, or is it pretty transparent?
-Rich-
This is quite stable. We will try to fix some bugs related to the condenseChanges but for normal user this should not have an impact.
Stef
On 3 sept. 06, at 09:28, Rich Warren wrote:
It seems like a lot of people are using 3.9 already. Which raises a basic question, should I upgrade?
How stable is 3.9. Are there a lot of backward compatibility issues? Are there a lot of things that still need to be ported to 3.9, or is it pretty transparent?
-Rich-
I've played around with 3.9 and the interface seems much nicer than 3.8. I had some trouble loading packages--but nothing that I really need. So, I'm willing to make the plunge (or at least try it out).
What's the best way to move the code I've written in my 3.8 image over to the 3.9 image? I'm guessing I should save a new change set, then open that set in 3.9. Is there anything else I should do? Any gotchas I should watch out for?
-Rich-
On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:23 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:
This is quite stable. We will try to fix some bugs related to the condenseChanges but for normal user this should not have an impact.
Stef
On 3 sept. 06, at 09:28, Rich Warren wrote:
It seems like a lot of people are using 3.9 already. Which raises a basic question, should I upgrade?
How stable is 3.9. Are there a lot of backward compatibility issues? Are there a lot of things that still need to be ported to 3.9, or is it pretty transparent?
-Rich-
(just for the sake of completeness...)
in the most recent collection package of 3.9, the string comparison was reverted to the 3.7 behavior. this causes monticello to load the package extensions (*package) before the actual package, and not afterwards as in 3.8 (maybe in preceding versions as well, i dunno). while this causes no problems for most of the packages, there might be some around depending on this loading order. in this case, loading errors will occur. modifying monticello to have a fixed loading order, independent from string sorting (or just with clear definition if extensions get loaded before or after the package), would help to prevent such issues in the future.
Am 04.09.2006 um 15:54 schrieb stéphane ducasse:
use monticello :)
What's the best way to move the code I've written in my 3.8 image over to the 3.9 image? I'm guessing I should save a new change set, then open that set in 3.9. Is there anything else I should do? Any gotchas I should watch out for?
Pascal Zumkehr wrote:
in the most recent collection package of 3.9, the string comparison was reverted to the 3.7 behavior.
Really? Did anyone see a request/discussion/decision about this issue? Last time this was brought up, it seemed most people were happy with the changed sort order.
Cheers, - Andreas
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org