Squeak 3.8 status

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Fri Jul 30 12:00:59 UTC 2004

Hi steven

On 27 juil. 04, at 22:07, Steven Riggins wrote:

> Thank you all for understanding.  We're going to be doing our part to 
> forward Squeak (We're already working on adding OS windows and all 
> sorts of goodness)

This is really nice to hear that. I think that being aware that other 
people work on something is the
first level of communication and this is important.

> We can't really port Tweak until M17n is in place however as we don't 
> want to keep re-porting it.  And as it stands, some comments won't 
> even load in properly :)
> I'm not asking anyone to build a special Squeak for us.  But I think 
> more stable squeaks with shorter life cycles are better for the 
> platform than a 18 month release with 20 new things that cause all 
> sorts of havoc.

But we are quite a few and doing that the nights :)

> Not to mention once this m17n stuff goes in and is debugged, everyone 
> in the community wins with a large step forward.


> Steve
> P.S.  We don't have a page for TK4 up yet, which will be open source 
> btw.  I'm working on it.
> On Jul 27, 2004, at 10:10 AM, Julian Fitzell wrote:
>> I actually think this sounds reasonable too.  I think it's useful to 
>> focus on a specific feature set for a release and m17n certainly 
>> seems large enough to pretty much justify its own release.  By the 
>> time we work out any bugs in it and any other that we come along 
>> (plus random other small stuff) there will be plenty of reason to do 
>> it.  It would also give us practice at getting shorter releases :)
>> Julian
>> Andreas Raab wrote:
>>> Hi Doug,
>>> I think it is worthwhile for a number of ongoing projects to 
>>> consider a very
>>> short 3.8 cycle which basically pulls in the m17n stuff and no more. 
>>> The
>>> reason being that various projects do need a stable point of 
>>> departure which
>>> *does* include m17n and the changes are major enough that they will 
>>> most
>>> definitely need some time to shake down. I think we would be better 
>>> off if
>>> we basically go to beta straight away and maybe have another release 
>>> two
>>> months down the road than putting in (and waiting for!) "new stuff" 
>>> and have
>>> the next release only 6-8 month from now.
>>> Cheers,
>>>   - Andreas
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Way" <dway at mailcan.com>
>>> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
>>> <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 10:39 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Squeak 3.8 status
>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2004, at 02:20 PM, Steven Riggins wrote:
>>>>> Hello folks!
>>>>> We've begun work on TK4 in Tweak.  One of the issues that has come 
>>>>> up
>>>>> is the internationalization work that Michael and Yoshiki are 
>>>>> working
>>>>> on.
>>>>> Since TK4 depends on this work, I'd like to get a sense of the 3.8
>>>>> status.  I've seen notes from as far back as January, but I don't
>>>>> think 3.8 is done yet.
>>>> There was originally talk (early this year) of getting the
>>>> internationalization work in 3.7, but the i18n changes were major
>>>> enough that Michael & Yoshiki needed a stable point at which to add 
>>>> the
>>>> changes, instead of the constantly shifting base of 3.7alpha.  So
>>>> they're being added now as the first item in 3.8alpha, without 
>>>> having
>>>> to have any other changes go in first.
>>>> 3.8 is not done yet, it only recently started.
>>>>> I'd like to see 3.8 nailed down to just these changes and finished.
>>>> Well, 3.8 was tentatively planned to be a shorter/smaller release
>>>> (coordinated with the 64-bit 4.0 release) so something like this
>>>> *might* work out.  But we need to hear from the 64-bit folks on 
>>>> this.
>>>> (disclaimer: I'm just now looking up "TK4" on Google, although I'm
>>>> familiar with Tweak & Croquet)
>>>>> As more and more people learn about Squeak/Tweak and more projects
>>>>> start to rely on the wonderful work you do, we're going to need 
>>>>> more
>>>>> stable versions than less stable versions, and shorter development
>>>>> cycles for each iteration.
>>>> Unfortunately these last two (more stability and shorter development
>>>> cycles) are in conflict with each other.  Well, you can decrease the
>>>> overall amount of change in Squeak and then I guess you could get 
>>>> both
>>>> of those things.  Or, try to improve the development process in 
>>>> general
>>>> (e.g. have the equivalent of some direct "committers"), which we're
>>>> working on, but that's not easy.
>>>> Anyway, 3.7 is taking about 9 months instead of the originally 
>>>> planned
>>>> 6 months, so I agree that is too long.  But getting the releases
>>>> significantly faster than every 6 months... ain't gonna happen 
>>>> anytime
>>>> soon.  It would require someone else taking over the release process
>>>> from me (for starters), and doing a lot of work on the process...
>>>> - Doug
> http://www.geeksrus.com/

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list