Hi!

Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com> wrote:
> I'm confused.  Aren't we mixing two different concepts here?  One being
> the image version to which a given package is known to apply.  It just
> happens to be that one image version was labelled '3.9alpha'.  The
> second concept is the 'quality' (aka Maturity Level) of the individual
> package.  In SqueakMap these two concepts are seperate, the first
> labelled 'Squeak Version', which includes the choice of
> 'Squeak3.9-alpha' among others and Maturity level which includes
> 'Bleeding edge', 'Alpha', 'Beta', etc.  Each package can be labelled
> with either or both of these.
> 
> Then there is another concept here you seem to want to have applied to
> packages which is some sort of official 'blessing' of the package
> relative to how well it works in a given image version.  This is
> something else entirely, and I'm not sure something that can be easily
> defined.
> 
> Ken

Well, one could argue that if a release is marked as "3.8" it implies
that it has been at least smoke tested in 3.8.
If a release is smoke tested in a 3.9a image - and marked as such - it
could be interpreted like "it worked at least once in 3.9a - it could
work in the released 3.9 or a later 3.9a too, but it has *not* been
tested".

So even though everything you write is true (Maturity Level is an
orthogonal concept etc) - I still think the approach Andrew describes is
worth following. Until 3.9 is released you should only use the 3.9a
category (and in hindsight I should have waited with creating 3.9 until
the actual 3.9 release - but what the hell).

regards, Göran