Keith Hodges wrote:
> Andreas Raab wrote:
>> I was just doing some stuff in 3.10 when I decided to try the 3.11
>> alpha. First of all, can we *please* rename the image to 3.11 instead
>> of 3.10.2 "bc"? The reason being that 1) I've never seen the
>> designation "build candidate" for any software project, and 2) it gets
>> extremely confusing when you have to distinguish "3.10.2" (which works
>> fine) from "3.10.2 bc" (which breaks). Much simpler to call 3.11 alpha
>> what it is: 3.11 alpha.
> But it isn't 3.11 alpha. it has no changes to the base image, except
> what are required to support loading LPF and make a 3.10 base image
> usable for building production images using Sake/Packages.

It's not "changes to the base image" that make a Squeak release. A 
Squeak release is to a large extent the (versions of) packages shipped 
with it. And yes, you can update them individually if you like but there 
is a release process behind the included packages as well. If there 
wasn't, we wouldn't include them to begin with. And the list of 
new/updated packages in the welcome window alone is enough to give this 
a 3.11 designation:

* SqueakMap - catalog/categories browsers
* Universes
* Installer
* SUnit
* Sake
* Packages
* Tasks
* SystemEditor
* Monticello 1.5 including:
	- PackageInfo
	- MonticelloConfigurations
	- File support
	- Orphanage
	- AtomicLoading (not enabled by default)

I mean, seriously, this is a ton of stuff! And it's quite a bit 
different from 3.10 and it *does* include changes to the base image. 
Given the amount of changes, that image really should not be called 3.10 
any longer; you are only creating confusion by insisting this be called 
3.10.

> The difference with this process and previous releases, is that this
> release is planned, there is a design, the tasks are in place, they just
> need fleshing out. (at least thats the theory), so when these tasks are
> ready and applied for the first time, that is when we call things alpha.

Then call the prior phase development, pre-alpha or whatever else you 
like. But given the amount of modification I don't think you should 
continue to refer to it as 3.10.

> The "process" involves defining sets of tasks to create deliverables in
> parallel. The application of fixes will be what makes things potentially
> unstable so I dont want to over do it with too many so hopefully we wont
> stay in alpha too long.
> 
> 3.10.2bc -> 3.11tc -> 3.11rc -> 3.11-test -> 3.11-light -> 3.11-fun
> (build0 - nofixes)
>                -> 3.11tc -> 3.11rc -> 3.11-test -> 3.11-light ->
> 3.11-fun (build1 - 50 fixes) etc.
> 
> I am working on tasks to load fixes,
> http://bugs.squeak.org/installer_export.php?project=Squeak only went
> live yesterday. I also started harvesting edgars SqueakLightII script to
> make a few more things unloadable to generate a 3.11-light etc.

All of which is great. Though it would be good if you would communicate 
about this more often so that there is some visibility of the process.

>> (no I won't call it 3.10.2 bc ;-) is that apparently Monticello got
>> badly broken. 
> I didnt have this problem, I built an image on it so I have no idea what
> is going on.

Of course, right that moment Squeaksource goes down :-) Well, in any 
case, when it's back up, try this. Point your MC to this repository:

MCHttpRepository
	location: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/Balloon3D'
	user: ''
	password: ''

And try to load or browse "Balloon3D-Constants-ar.4.mcz". When I do 
this, I die with the trace that I sent. However, 
Balloon3D-Constants-ar.5.mcz which was published from loading the above 
into 3.10 will load fine. I think this is quite repeatable.

Cheers,
   - Andreas