3.6 Full release testing (was Re: [BUG]? Upgrade to full image
dway at riskmetrics.com
Tue Aug 19 19:32:48 UTC 2003
Julian Fitzell wrote:
> Doug Way wrote:
>> Whatever we do, we need to handle the "classic SM1.0 problem" of not
>> having package versions somehow for 3.6.
>> I think your idea to duplicate the 9 packages with "XXX 3.6 release"
>> may be the best option, since we'll probably need to change at least
>> one of the packages in 3.7alpha before SM2 is ready.
> So much complexity! Why can't we just release a full and a base image
> every time we put up a new image?
The "XXX 3.6 release" renaming is not really that important to what I
was proposing... we could always skip that. I thought it might be
useful to at least have 3.6 versions of the Squeak-Official packages out
there and not have them overwritten/lost, regardless of what we do with
the update stream.
> The updates should all still work fine when pulled into a base image
> or a full image since they should only be touching the base image.
Exactly, this was the point I was making. (There may be rare load-order
problems due to arbitrary do-its, but mostly the full image should be fine.)
> So you can download whichever one you want and follow the updates
> until a final release.
See my response to Goran, I merely wanted to add a convenience yes/no
prompt for people to switch to Full if they want by loading the packages
via SM. I think this is actually simpler than regularly providing Full
and Basic alpha images on the ftp site. The update stream would still
stick to the Basic image, but people with Full images could follow along
More information about the Squeak-dev