Final 3.6 Plan
Doug Way
dway at riskmetrics.com
Wed Jun 4 23:55:21 UTC 2003
Thanks for bringing up this summary again... I was just thinking of
doing the same thing. :-) Comments follow...
Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>Summary of plan as released + agreements that came afterwards -
>1 Removals
>2 KCP
>3 MCP
>4 Anthony runtime enhancements (split in two - fixes and closures)
>5 Craig's simulator fixes
>6 mir Network rewrite
>7 TrueTypeTextStyle
>8 Diego look style enhancements
>9 Replace fonts with AccuFonts (mainly in order to remove the old -
>people can now load additional nice fonts themselves anyway).
>10 SM 1.1
>11 Inclusion of SM plus related packages in the release image (though
>maintained as packages, not directly by update stream).
>
>1 is done. 2 has completed initial step, they have more changes in the
>pipe line, and are looking for reviewers for that. 3's initial step is
>done, approved, and harvested.
>
>I'm for including the fixes in 4 right now. I recall someone did run
>benchmarks with the closures + VM patches, but can't find the mail. Can
>someone refresh our memory? I would really want to have closure
>semantics.
>
>
The main holdup here is whether we want to include something which
relies on a non-SqueakL license, as Tim said. Maybe it's acceptable
since it's only the generator which is non-SqueakL, but we need to
decide that before we stick it in.
>I suggest we do 9 right now.
>
Sounds good to me. I can give it a quick test to make sure it still
works and then incorporate it soon. Technically these fonts are also
under a non-SqueakL license, but I think for something that's not source
code, that's acceptable. We aren't likely to ever find any fonts
released under SqueakL anyway, so we shouldn't wait around for them.
The license they came with seemed very simple and reasonable (probably
OSI and Debian DFSG compliant too). Worst case we could always remove
them later if there turned out to be a problem.
>Michael recently rereleased 6 and had gotten some comments. Michael,
>anyone, knows where exactly this stuff stands?
>
>5, 7, 8 - does anyone know give an update on each of these? whether
>they've passed some review, testing, work in 3.6a ... the usual. BTW, do
>we have a test for the simulator? sounds like something that deserves a
>few tests.
>
>
It would be nice to have some sort of voting tool or similar for
subjective things like Diego's look enhancements. I guess a full-blown
harvesting tool should include something like that. For now I guess
we'll just have to discuss these things on the list, and one of the
guides can make a sort of summary decision based on the discussion.
(BTW I'm planning on finally spending some time on creating a real
harvesting tool when 3.6 goes to beta. Although anyone is welcome to
help out or work on one sooner. I will try out Brent's viewer tool
soon, too.)
>I know 10 is being worked on hard, and I think some concensus was
>reached about 11, but am not sure if Gorans decided, and if so, whether
>we're waiting with it for 10 or not.
>
>
Right... I mentioned in my other message that I would prefer to see SM
and related packages (which would be SAR and PackageInfo, I think)
included in the update stream as "load package" commands. (as opposed to
not including them in the update stream at all which was suggested
awhile ago)
- Doug Way
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|