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
|