Bijan Parsia <bparsia at email.unc.edu> writes:
> When Ralph Johnson annouced his "Stable Squeak World Tour" at Camp
> Smalltalk 2, several in the audience (myself included) worried about
> the possibility of "Regular Squeak" being labeled "unstable" in
> contrast...which is true in the origianl sense Ralph meant it (i.e.,
> often changing) and not nearly as true in the sense we were worried
> about (i.e., crashy).

I happen to like "Stable Squeak". The above is an issue though.
Debian went through this same debate. The current system there is as
follows:

"stable" - rock-solid; end-users, production users

"testing" - cutting-edge, but free from obvious breakage; power users

"unstable" - bleeding edge; developers' sandbox

These are not fixed, separate codebases but a list of package
versions.  To cut a release you gather the specified package versions
from a common pool.

They are also moving targets - unstable changes daily, testing a
little less frequently, stable perhaps yearly (for the sake of
argument). Developers refer to each existing or forthcoming stable
release with a catchy nickname ("woody", "potato", etc.). (Yes there
is a place for "Pink Fluffy Bunny Squeak" in this system.)

This may not be directly relevant to squeak at this moment but I
thought I'd throw it into the mix.

-Simon