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

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Mon Apr 14 08:07:10 UTC 2003

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > 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

Thinking a bit more about this perhaps I misunderstood you. I agree that
we could "package up" the updates necessary to move from Squeak x.y to
x.y.z when we think we have reached a z-release.

In fact - in light of the other threads discussing release frequency
perhaps we simply need to have two different cycles - one for major and
one for minor. For example, let's say we have minor releases rather
frequently and based more on timeliness than content. Perhaps say 3-4
per year. Those minor-releases would be perfect to simply package up as
a package on SM. It wouldn't require new VMs and not even new images -
so there would be no weight on VM maintainers nor other people involved
when packing up a new major release.

And then the major releases could be approximately 1-2 per year with new
VMs, new downloads etc. And we wouldn't need to be so hung up on
timeliness for those but instead we simply work on chosen goals until
they are done (as in quality, reported bugs etc).

Anyway, sorry for being so confusing - my earlier post probably came to
soon, I was imagining dumping the update stream altogether (which
perhaps will be a possibility when we eventually get down to a really
small image like the one Craig is producing).

My dream scenario in the future would be a fully package-partitioned
Squeak with an apt-get similar system (SqueakMap + dependency
management) and Monticello "channels" for the different packages (like
CVS in the rest of the world) when I want to be really on the edge.

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list