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

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Mon Apr 14 15:51:16 UTC 2003

Hi Göran,

> 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.

That's kinda what I was thinking. It just appeared to me that "hey we got
Squeakmap for hosting packages" and in some ways a release (actually
regardless of major/minor) is nothing but a package - with the exception
that many other packages are likely to rely on it.

  - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list