I thought someone would add the String refactoring to 3.9a ASAP?

- Bert -

Am 16.04.2005 um 23:47 schrieb Doug Way:

>
> I think the current situation is somewhat unusual, in that a major 
> update (the String refactoring) was added to a x.y beta/gamma release, 
> but not added to the following x.y+1 alpha release.
>
> In this case I think it was warranted... basically there were already 
> some major changes to String made early in 3.8alpha (because of m17n), 
> so if we're going to revamp those changes, we should really try to do 
> it in the same release if at all possible.  (So we don't have 3.7 with 
> old-style Strings, 3.8 with major String changes, and 3.9 with yet 
> more major String changes.)  Even if this means delaying 3.8 a bit.
>
> And also, there will be 3.8.1, 3.8.2 etc releases which can contain 
> bug fixes.
>
> Actually, I don't think 3.9alpha had really diverged that much from 
> 3.8gamma (before the String changes)... the only major change was 
> Diego's look changes, but a lot of that was just image/preference 
> changes.  So I don't think it will be too hard to port the String 
> changes forward from 3.8gamma to 3.9alpha.  I guess the idea is to 
> hammer out the (String change) problems in the 3.8gamma version before 
> porting it forward to 3.9alpha.
>
> So in summary, I don't think this will be a particularly common 
> situation.
>
> - Doug
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Ken Causey wrote:
>
>> As Bert's chart on http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/275 shows the
>> sequence of updates between for 3.8 and 3.9 is quite complicated.  At
>> times (including now) we've had a situation where there are updates in
>> the 3.8 update stream that are not in the 3.9 update stream.  Now 
>> maybe
>> I just haven't been paying much attention in the past but this is not 
>> a
>> common occurrence in the history of Squeak development I don't 
>> believe.
>> Right now it is causing us in the Janitors team a bit of a headache as
>> it's a bit of a toss up at times to what image a given fix may or may
>> not apply.  We've had a policy of testing everything against a fully
>> updated 3.9 image and this has been fine in general but is right now a
>> problem with all the String updates that are in 3.8 but not in 3.9.
>>
>> What I'm wondering is whether we expect this to be a more common
>> situation in the future than it has been in the past.  To be more
>> explicit do we expect it to be not uncommon in the future for there to
>> be a situation in which y.x has some number of updates that y.(x+1) 
>> does
>> not?  If so then we (Janitors and friends) will need to plan for this 
>> I
>> think.
>>
>> Ken
>>