release prioritization (was "ClassBuilder problem")

Richard A. O'Keefe ok at cs.otago.ac.nz
Mon Mar 3 02:03:27 UTC 2003


Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
	> It's about having many releases, at quite frequent, predictable
	> intervals, that are getting better and better, and keeping
	> production and development close.
and Simon Michael <simon at joyful.com> wrote:
	I've found releasing on the first of every month to be a useful
	discipline.

They've helped me understand why I've been bothered about the Squeak
release process.

Basically, the current idea seems to be that Squeak users should
 1. Download some release of Squeak.
 2. Periodically use the "Squeak" flap to download and install patches.

There ARE many releases.  Every time the "current patches" set is increased,
that's in effect a new release.  These releases are fairly frequent, albeit
not at predictable intervals.  They do make the system better and better.

So if you are happy to keep all your work in change sets (or SARs or
whatever) then you can from time to time start up a fresh image, download
and install the latest patches, save your image as new fresh image,
and reload your work.

Let's face it, this is a lot easier than keeping almost any other package
up to date.  If I want the latest version of some Scheme system, I have to
download patches, apply them, and rebuild the whole thing.  I really only
*have* to download a whole new Squeak system when the VM changes, and VM
changes are rarer than other kinds of changes.

So we HAVE a process for frequent releases and it is USED.

Why don't I like it?  I could give you a list of reasons, but I suspect
that the defect is really in me.  Perhaps I'm still not used to doing
things the Squeaky way.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list