Update stream vs. SM packages (was: RE: [ANN] Squeak 3.5 released)

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sun Apr 13 12:56:37 UTC 2003

Bert wrote:
> If you want to avoid referring to changeset numbers (which 
> IMHO is not a worthy goal) then you should bump up the
> tertiary version number *each time* you put a bunch of
> updates in the stream.

Actually that raises an interesting opportunity. Right now we have
essentially two independent mechanisms for "publishing code" - SqueakMap and
the update stream. What if the two would get unified? What if we would
simply include minor versions and post these as packages on SqueakMap? We
might simply have a few packages that transform the system 3.5.1 -> 3.5.2 ->
3.5.3 etc. Those packages would merely include the appropriate change sets
(SARed) so it's simple to package them up. A nice thing about this scheme is
that it would be simple to flag those update packages as "alpha", "beta" or
"stable" and it would fit with the general scheme of things at SqueakMap.
Once any of these packages is loaded the system gets marked accordingly but
that's essentially it. "Official releases" would merely mean loading these
packages and making an image/changes pair available.

Perhaps most importantly it would put the responsibility of a version update
at the users disposal, e.g., whether to load the 3.5.3 -> 3.5.4 package is
entirely at the users request. It would allow people to update their system
at the point where they feel that they're "ready for it" and not require
them to make a decision on which update stream to sit on based on incomplete
information (e.g., "uh ... do I want to get into 'final' or 'alpha' here").

What do you think?

  - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list