Order! Order in the ...

Dan Ingalls Dan.Ingalls at disney.com
Wed Feb 7 03:20:49 UTC 2001


Jeff Szuhay <jeff at szuhay.org> wrote...
>This appears to be madness!

It's working!

>I can understand the need to push ahead to version 3.0
>for a CD release, but what is the rationale to so quickly
>jump to 3.1 without first fixing bugs?

Jumping's fun.  Bugs are a drag.

>There was never really a 3.0 alpha or else 3.0 is really
>an alpha for 3.1?

No, no.  You've got it all wrong.

>Do the version numbers _mean_ anything or are they
>just arbitrary snapshots based on whimsy?

Mere whimsy, man.

Bartender, pour this man a good stiff drink.

 |

 |

 |

 |

 |

 |
\/

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?

	;-)






More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list