On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 06:18:15PM -0800, John M McIntosh wrote:
> 
> On 15-Feb-09, at 6:06 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> >Works for me.  When and if the VM is no longer backwards-compatible  
> >(e.g. the Stack VM) one can move to 5.0.
> >However, I would recommend getting the VM changes into the 4.0 VM as  
> >this will make migrating to image-level closures much easier.  I  
> >believe (John, can you confirm) that John's latest Mac 3.8 beta VMs  
> >have included the closure bytecodes.
> 
> Well I've not done that (yet) was waiting on Eliot for the latest VM  
> changes before christmas. Then I've been
> distracted by an iPhone application.
> 
> I recall David T and I last discussed the issues around the source  
> code changes and how it cheerfully
> upgrades your image, which then makes it un-run-able  on the raft of  
> VMs one has on one's machine, but
> I recall we thought we could tie the image version change on save to  
> only happen if in fact the image
> *uses* the closure bytes code.

Right, Eliot's bytecode changes are fully backward compatible, so they
can be added to VMMaker without breaking anything. The image version
numbering change needs to be left out for now, but that's a small issue
that can be the subject of separate discussion.

Eliot, if you can confirm that the bytecode changes are ready for
release, and that the license is <whatever>, then I'll volunteer to
add your bytecode bootstrap changes to the Squeaksource VMMaker project
and make whatever minor changes are needed to avoid the image numbering
glitch.

Dave