hi bert

I stopped to push stuff in 3.9a to avoid to put extra mess.
But indeed we should in sync somehow.

Stef

> 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
>>>
>
>