Proposal for Squeak 3.8 release schedule
Germán S. Arduino
gsa at softhome.net
Sun Oct 10 12:19:11 UTC 2004
At risk of sound irreverent because I'm not a player in the squeak releases
I want to say I second Stef and Marcus in the sense that Squeaklanders
*must* have a better communication with the squeak-dev community.
I know very well how hard has been working Diego to be in time with
SmallLand Squeak and sound a bit unfear, after a long time without talk,
this change of plans.
"stéphane ducasse" <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> escribió en el mensaje
news:26362DD2-19D7-11D9-B865-000D932DAF46 at iam.unibe.ch...
>> Has it been that long already? I apologize. With two upcoming releases,
>> with preparing various new projects and spending too much time on
>> airports time really flies by.
> I understand but this is true that with marcus we really wanted to push
> all the pending fixes because during nearly a month or more nothing
> happened. And this is what diego pointed.
>>> Meanwhile the community moved in another directing in absence of answers
>>> from you. Talking for myself I changed my plans about Small-Land's
>>> release delaying it for weeks and I invested time and effort merging my
>>> changes in unstable stream to join 3.8.
>> Do I understand you correctly that you would like to see the 3.8 release
>> to be in sync with the Small-Land release? If so, would it matter if the
>> Small-Land release were sync-ed with the 3.9 release instead?
> I'm not diego but I think that we could (but for that we would need help)
> release a fast 3.9 if diego needs it.
>>> Note that more than 2 months had elapsed since the original idea of
>>> ultraConservative-shortRelease for 3.8. That means we spent more time
>>> waiting that the time we decided to invest on 3.8UltraStable (As it was
>>> 2 months).
> Andreas I hope that you will have more time in the future for every
> (bodies) :)
> Now I would like to take the opportunity to raise the following points:
> - it would be nice that the main players in Squeak have more visible
> schedules (even if they do not have to be mentioned
> months in advanced, may change....)
> - I think that a bit of communication would ***really*** help.
> - We tried to do that with ESUG but partially failed.
> - Sometimes I have the feeling that Squeaklanders, tweakers, plays a bit
> alone (I understand because
> this is certainly the best way for you to go fast) still it would be nice
> to have some known points or targets
> For example, since I saw the latest version of Tweak I stopped to think at
> all about morphic and morphic improvements.
> Now the questions is that Tweak does not exist because we do not know
> "publicly" what it is what are the plans.
> I understand well that having plans for tweak too early can be as bad as
> none. Because during that time, people such as
> diego needs a better Morphic and look. Still it would be nice to have a
> vision at one year. And to see how /if transition is planned
> get tweak instead of Morphic.
> So I do not ask you to react on this particular aspects but think in term
> of how to improve the communication
> between all the partners. I think that this would have been the role of
> squeak foundation but this stuff
> never existed. So may be we should make it real.
More information about the Squeak-dev