Mantis: 0000474 AccurateDateAndTime harvested?
denker at iam.unibe.ch
Fri Oct 13 13:28:39 UTC 2006
On 13.10.2006, at 15:10, Keith Hodges wrote:
> Marcus Denker wrote:
>> On 12.10.2006, at 12:21, Keith Hodges wrote:
>>> Has this been included in a base squeak image yet?
>> of course not.
>> I added this to mantis on 10-28-04 15:38
>> The very first comment on this bug is by you from 10-12-06 14:50
>> A fix that is so important that nobody looks at it for 2 years is
>> for sure need
>> to be addt between Release Canditate 1 and 2. Yes. Obviously.
> Was that sarcasm?
> I asked the question, simply and only because I am still using 3.8
> and have never even looked at 3.9 to know what is or isn't in there.
> Other people have looked at it since, just not in that particular
> The whole point of using testing in the first place is to reduce
> the 'cost' of releasing, to release frequently and often etc. If
> the test suite is comprehensive enough to cover the bases, and the
> test suite passes, then including it is a 'no brainer'. I don't
> think it matters what release, or when. In this case where you are
> fortunate enough to have a test suite, then why not go for it.
> So, although I hadn't suggested putting this in RC2, and I don't
> think that my fixes/ideas will have been sufficiently tested for a
> couple of days, now you come to mention it, I think that that it
> would be a great idea to include it once the testing has been done.
The idea of gamma (which was the state we where in *before* RC1) is
defined as "Show Stopping Bugs only". The reason for that is that we
need to find
a way to stop and *release* 3.9. There are lots of cool changes,
sure. Especially because they where not added to 3.9 after it went
gamma. If we
now start to add again everything that's cool, we will *never* be
able to release.
Why don't we release first (fixing those bugs that are real show
stoppers), and then start again to add stuff with 3.10?
More information about the Squeak-dev