Condense Changes for 3.7 Full?

Hernan Tylim htylim at yahoo.com.ar
Sat Aug 28 02:53:13 UTC 2004


Hi,
	My 2 cents are to make both versions available, one with sources
condensed and one not. 

	I think that its very important to have images small enough so
someone with dialup would still want to download and try squeak. Also I
dare to say that the big majority of squeak users do not need or even
know that they have this history available. So I think condensing
sources is the right decision.

	But for us, the 1% :) that want to have this history, make it
available too.

Regards,
Hernán


> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of Doug Way
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 9:30 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Condense Changes for 3.7 Full?
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list