Release 3.1 or 3.2?

Dan Ingalls Dan at SqueakLand.org
Sun Dec 2 18:30:32 UTC 2001


Doug Way <dway at 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




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list