Dan Ingalls [mailto:Dan.Ingalls at disney.com] writes:

> It's simple...
>
> 1.  2.9alpha was effectively the alpha for 3.0.
>
> 2.  Some people are still doing test pilot work, so as soon as I
> put out 3.0, I advanced to 3.1 to track those updates into the future.
>
> 3.  By today (and it ain't over yet...) I had planned to copy all
> the 3.1 updates that are bug fixes back into the 3.0 update
> stream.  This will continue to be the pattern until no more bugs
> are discovered (mm hmm...) or until the deadline for writing the
> CD (about a week, now).
>
> 4.  So the current scheme allows test pilot work to go on as
> normal, while only stable bug fixes are applied to the 3.0 image.
>  What could be more rational?  Anything short of this would be
> mere chaos.  How can anyone fail to appreciate the logic and
> sheer elegance of this approach?
>
> 	;-)

So what should those of us not in test pilot mode do?  I was waiting for an
opportune moment to a) update my BDF stuff to work with a more recent Squeak
and b) rebuild the Helio port with a bunch of *really* speedy new Linux goo.
b is going to block on a new Unix VM, but will there still be anyone
interested in a&b by the time that shows up?  Is there a non-test pilot
hacker niche in the Squeak ecology, or is the current stable version only
for people who aren't planning to work at the pace of the Squeak dev
community?

Maybe what would make me happy are minor rev numbers.  Like, 3.0.0 is what
we have now, 3.0.1 after a few more updates, etc.  Just giving a name to
particular configurations can help non-core hackers do better support in any
open source project.....

Jay