Jeff Szuhay wrote:
> 
> This appears to be madness!

It's not as bad as it looks. :)

> 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?

The existence of a 3.1alpha does *not* mean that there won't be additional bug fixes made to 3.0.  (Also, you'll notice that there's a lot more bug fixing going on this week because of the upcoming 3.0 release, in an attempt to make it as stable as possible.)

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

2.9alpha was really the 3.0alpha.  It was kind of a weird situation, in that the decision was made to rename the 2.9 release as 3.0 instead.

Aside from skipping over 2.9 to 3.0, there's nothing unusual about creating a 3.1alpha at this point, since we're around the time of the 3.0 release.  Previous releases have worked this way.  Don't interpret the fact that a 3.1alpha exists, to mean that 3.0 is somehow obsolete.  3.0 will presumably be the stable version to base your work on for some time.  (If you need a stable base, that is... if you don't need a stable base, try 3.1alpha! :) )

It's not uncommon for part of a software development group to be thinking about and working on the next release (e.g. 3.1alpha), while another part is finishing up a current release (e.g. 3.0).  The big difference here is that Squeak Central decides to make 3.1alpha publicly available right away for the curious, whereas most places (e.g. Sun/Java) would keep it hidden internally for awhile.

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

Well, you do have a little bit of a point here.  There were some on this list who thought that there weren't enough major new features in this release to warrant a 3.0 title.  On the other hand, this version will have a significantly different out-of-the-box environment than the 2.x series (Morphic instead of MVC), so in that sense it's somewhat justified.

> This rapid and perpetual numbering scheme is
> unusual and gives the feeling of standing on quicksand
> to a newbie.  Do you ever plan on stabilizing this thing?
> Is 3.0 it or 3.3 or .3.8 or 4.6? Sheesh, Java looks stable
> compared to this (even though it tastes bad).

If it makes you feel better, the version number changes seem to have been slowing down gradually... this last version (3.0) took 8 months to go from its alpha state to final release, which is the longest yet (I think).

Anyway, I'm not speaking for Squeak Central or anything here... just some thoughts from a listmember who's been following the release process for a few years.

(Actually, I don't necessarily think the current release process is perfect... some sort of minor revision numbers or patchlevels for post-release fixes might be nice, which I think Jay Carlson mentioned in another email.  It's easier to remember a 3.0p1 or 3.0.1 revision rather than 3.0-3527.)

- Doug Way
  dway at riskmetrics.com