Ned Konz wrote:

>On Wednesday 17 September 2003 08:30 am, Lex Spoon wrote:
>  
>
>>However, many Squeak users aren't developing Squeak itself, and
>>don't care about the history.  It would be nice if the minor stable
>>releases started having small changes files.  It would roughly
>>double the amount of images you can have in the same amount of disk
>>space, and it would similarly decrease the amount of time it takes
>>to ftp images around.
>>
>>Anyway, it already sucks that history is lost from before 3.0,
>>unless you want to load a 2.9 image.  We really need a better
>>history mechanism at some point, anyway....
>>    
>>
>
>We could also supply a corresponding "deep history" changes file for 
>those interested in going back. I believe Doug has supplied one of 
>these; I've made them by keeping a local updates server directory and 
>loading them all into an older image (I believe that I started with a 
>2.8 or 2.9 image).
>

Yes, the "jumbo-changes" image with the deep history is here:

ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/Smalltalk/Squeak/testing/Squeak3.6a.from3.0.zip

It's an earlier version of 3.6alpha... it could stand to be updated 
again when 3.6 goes final.

Speaking of reasonably small .changes files, I assume that I want to do 
a "Smalltalk condenseChanges" as part of preparing the 3.6gamma 
candidate image?  I'm thinking that this is typically done for every 
point release, right?  This reduces the size of the .changes file 
somewhat.  (Not as much as condensing with the .sources, though.)

After doing the #condenseChanges, I'll remove the actual changeset 
instances, etc.

- Doug