Yes indeed, I misunderstood.  Somehow I missed the idea that changing
the label would result in a package automatically being labelled as
working in 3.9 when it had only been tested in 3.9alpha.  Sorry about
that.  So yes, probably any alpha, beta, gamma categories need to stick
around for a while.

How about this.  Can you make it so that existing packages/releases with
these labels (Squeak3.9alpha for example) won't have them mysteriously
changed, but that the old image versions will no longer be currently
'active' choices.  In other words they can't be applied to new
packages/releases.  And maybe for the purposes of browsing by category
if you browse for 'Squeak3.9' you see also 'Squeak3.9*' but the
'Squeak3.9alpha' or whatever label should be clearly shown.

Ken

On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 22:12 +0200, goran at krampe.se wrote:
> 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, Gran
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20060817/281aa611/attachment.pgp