Marcus & I were just discussing whether we should do a "Smalltalk 
condenseChanges" for the 3.7 Full release.

Normally, we don't do it for point releases (3.4, 3.5, 3.6).  You lose 
the intermediate method version information, except for the latest 
version, plus the first version in the .sources file.  But it makes the 
.changes file a lot smaller (11MB instead of 20MB).

For the reasons I state below, I think it might be reasonable to 
condenseChanges on the Full image to make it a more reasonable download 
size.  But leave the Basic image alone.

Thoughts?

- Doug


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Marcus Denker <denker at iam.unibe.ch>
> Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004  5:37:46 PM America/Detroit
> To: Doug Way <dway at mailcan.com>
> Subject: Re: Full Image 3.7g for testing
>
>
> Am 27.08.2004 um 23:25 schrieb Doug Way:
>
>> On Friday, August 27, 2004, at 04:30 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
>
>>> ( I did a Smalltalk condenseChanges).
>>
>> ...  I'm on the fence on whether we should do condenseChanges.  I 
>> don't think it's been done in the past anytime during Squeak 2.x or 
>> 3.x. (except of course when we started over with new .changes at 2.0 
>> and 3.0)
>>
>> When you condense changes you lose all of the intermediate method 
>> versions, except for the most recent and the one in the .sources 
>> file.  (I believe)  This would be inconvenient for Basic image 
>> development, and it might mess up the ConflictChecker.  On the other 
>> hand, maybe it's okay for the Full image to have condensed changes, 
>> since active development on the image itself really just happens in 
>> Basic, not Full.  And of course the .changes file becomes much 
>> smaller.  So I guess doing it for Full would be okay with me.