taking 3.4a to beta
Ned Konz
ned at bike-nomad.com
Thu Nov 21 23:41:40 UTC 2002
On Thursday 21 November 2002 01:19 pm, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> Ned, about the network issues you raised - I'm not sure we want to
> address all of these in 3.4. I think we should assume that "stable"
> in terms of a release means "significantly better than the previous
> final". If Squeak's http requesting code wasn't industrial strength
> last time, but the Mail related protocol classes were ugly too, I
> think we should be happy if we get nicer mail this version, and let
> in the rest as it becomes ready.
>
> I think Michael's mail stuff may be applicable to 3.4, but that
> depends on more testing (we don't want to find out too late the new
> SocketStream/NetNameResolver code breaks Scamper, for example), and
> Michael making a clean release of only what's tested.
>
> It's possible as far as we know that Michael wants to continue to
> work on the HTTP stuff, and integrate the whole thing later.
>
> I personally think it would be better to test and integrate what we
> have now - there'll be enough to do next version, too ;-)
My concern is this: one of the significant changes to 3.4 is the
addition of SqueakMap. It's important that this be working
flawlessly.
To that end, I think we should be able to deal with network errors and
installation errors better. I'm tired of just getting "installation
of XXX failed" when the real cause is "got a 404 when trying to
download it" or "it tried to extend a class that didn't exist" or "it
didn't extract from the zip properly".
One possibility is to replace the HTTP downloading code *just for
SqueakMap*, but I think we can make it so that we can diagnose
download errors better.
And I know that I can improve the SMInstaller error reporting.
--
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|