Wierd numbering...

Doug Way dway at riskmetrics.com
Sat Apr 12 04:19:46 UTC 2003

On Saturday, April 12, 2003, at 12:40 AM, Alan Grimes wrote:

> What's up with the numbering? I thought we were on the linux-like
> even=stable, odd=devel track?

Nope.  Well, 3.3alpha was development only, but that's because the 
module system in 3.3alpha was abandoned and we wanted to start over 
with 3.4.  And I guess 3.1alpha was devel only too.  And so was 
2.9alpha.  Dang, maybe you're right after all! ;-)  But this is 
basically a series of coincidences, we're not doing an even-odd thing 
with the release numbers.

> I would have called this new release 3.4.1.

Well, there's something to be said for that... but we had a number of 
discussions on this and decided to call it 3.5.  (Squeak doesn't 
usually have tertiary point releases... 3.2.1 was the only one.)

> By the way, I spent a long time waiting for the 3.4 (presumably stable)
> release and then a quite supprising ammount of time playing around with
> it and changing stuff (such as removing unneded instance variables, 
> even
> from the "class" class. ;)
> I am _EXTREMELY_ reluctant to jump versions again... It would seem, 
> from
> the version numbering, that this is a major bugfix but I havn't
> experienced any problems with what I have.

You may not need to upgrade if you aren't doing anything related to the 
two bugs that were fixed.  (Related to rebuilding the class hierarchy, 
or saving and loading projects.)

In any case, having a quick bugfix-only release is something that we 
will hopefully avoid in the future.

- Doug Way

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list