[ANN] Squeak 3.5 released
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sun Apr 13 20:10:48 UTC 2003
> Anyway, there were several reasons for doing this short
> release - since the bugs in question were described as serious
> for some of the Squeak users we wanted to get a better base
> release before jumping into the "ripping the image apart" phase.
There certainly were (I didn't claim there weren't) - I was just giving a
couple of answers to the question "Why not?" ;-)
> Ok, excuse me for asking - but why were you quiet? Perhaps it
> would have been better if you spoke up earlier.
I guess this is meant towards Bert - if I may point out there have been
various people requesting to hold the release of 3.4 for including the class
builder fix (where I have to admit that I did _not_ agree on this) and I
have personally made a case for including Anthony's changes into 3.5.
Neither of those did happen with the response mostly being "no, it's too
While I don't generally disagree with this argument it appears that
following this logic there will never anything being posted to anything
that's declared gamma/final. And again, I don't generally disagree with that
either but then the question needs to be asked: What do you need that update
stream for? And if you don't need it, then why not unify the migration path?
> Andreas - you must be aware of the discussions about the quick 3.5
I certainly do but I also recognize emerging patterns ;-) No attempt has
been made to define the role of the update stream for any gamma/final
version and from the last two rounds it appears to me that there's never
going to be any role for it. And, once more, I don't mind this - but if
there's no need for it then we should review the evolution model we're
> Unfortunately 3.4 had some nasties in it and after long (in some ways
> time wasting) discussions on the lists we came to the decision to do a
> fast 3.5. Perhaps it was simply a mistake - obviously you are
> telling us it was.
Well, I am not. All I am saying is that there are reasons against "needless
version hopping" and that we should be considering the migration paths more
carefully if we want to live with short release cycles.
> It would have been immensely more useful for us to hear this
> before the release.
Speaking for myself (as always ;-) it's the cycle of 3.4/3.5 and the general
inclinations showing from the guides that make me raise these points. I
couldn't have voiced these earlier simply because there was not enough
evidence that this is the way it's likely going to be. I had expected this
to work out a little different and assumed that the general attitude of the
guides would not be quite as conservative as it apparently is. And, one
final time, I don't mind this but we should be reviewing our options in this
situation. The fork of the update stream has been designed for an aggressive
evolution model - if we're not following this model then it is just not
> Come on - who is saying we shouldn't use the update stream? Nobody
Hey, but _I_ am! Didn't you read my last message?! ;-)
More information about the Squeak-dev