On 10 mars 05, at 5:50, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:

>   Hello,
>
>   Lex posted this bug report:
>
> http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=942
>
> And it seems that there is something like "a fresh 3.9, updated to
> patch 6599."  So... What is it anyway?  Updated from one of these in
> ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu/Smalltalk/Squeak/3.9/?
>
>   Appearently, one thing that works in 3.8 gamma 6599 doesn't quite
> work in that version (maybe it is not too big difference, I hope).
> Also, in squeak-package, squeak-modules, and other mailing lists,
> there are many discussions about major changes toward 3.9.
>
>   So, here is my question: are people going to start the "3.9 work"
> from the coming 3.8 release, which I think I did my part, or from one
> of these versions?
>
>   Toward 3.9, many things will break (hopefully for a limited time).
> But I don't think it is a good idea to start from something already
> known to be unstable.

sure

>   For that matter, does anybody think it is a good idea to have a
> version something like 3.8.1, in which we only fix the bugs, but don't
> add new features?  The way we make new release (not only 3.8 but most
> of former versions) has been that we add many last minute changes
> toward new release, and not quite put much effort to stabilize things.
> And people tend not to jump to a beta or gamma version.  "A release,
> and a bug fix release" is a way to overcome this problem.  (Nihongo6
> had some rough edges. We released Nihongo6.1 to fix the problems and
> it worked very well.)

I would like to have 3.8 really stable :)
so either having 3.8 or 3.8.1


Stef
>
>   It is too late to advocate this idea, but we could name such thing
> 3.9 and all the "major" changes can go into new major version.  (And,
> in this case, we should keep both version "alive".)
>
> -- Yoshiki
>