On Sat, 31 May 2008 04:09:39 +0200, Jerome Peace wrote:

> Revising Squeak 7175 (3.10.1)

I think you describe your appreciation/critique as if the issues which Ken  
was concerned about can be fixed and uploaded to the public download area  
until everybody is happy with them :(

Can you reformulate so that the [main] concerns which Ken raised in his  
message on Wednesday are addressed, if possible one-by-one, TIA.

/Klaus

> Hi Ken, Hi Edgar, Hi Klaus,
>
> First appreciation.
> It is very good to see fixes to 3.10 come out
>  and to see a project run to schedule.
>
> Second appreciation in the form of critism.
> I just downloaded the revised 3.10.1.
> The first thing it tells me is that it is broken
>  and that I should click for an update and save the image.
>
> Everybody who down loads squeak must do this.
>
> Does something about this sound wrong to you?
>
> A revision to fix mistakes should not need user interaction
>  to fix mistakes made to the revision in the last step.
>
> First, you wonder why the releasers just did not
>  do those two steps before the release.
>
> Second, if you look into the problem you will see that
>  updating to 7175 from the update stream avoids the mistake entirely.
>  The phantom catagory is not there.
> The downside of doing it this way is that the changes file is not  
> condensed.
> So why not add a changeset with postscript to do only that?
> Then release the result?
>
> Yours in service and curiosity, --Jerome Peace
>
>
>
>