On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Ken G. Brown wrote:

> I don't see why those VM fixes would be necessary if the few known improvement issues with the 3.10.2 image are not.
>
> I think both should be done myself but others here are saying not.
> So it seems to me, neither or both.

I'm sure you know it Ken, but to make it 100% clear: only the source code 
in the image/sources file is frozen for 4.0. So no, those fixes won't get 
into 4.0. But we are free to ship 4.0 with the latest vm. This has the 
advantage that when people update to 4.1, they won't have to download a 
new vm, just the image, because the vm packed with 4.0 will just work 
fine.


Levente

>
> Ken G. Brown
>
> At 9:20 PM -0800 3/13/10, John M McIntosh apparently wrote:
>> Ok, tomorrow I'll look at pushing a 4.2.3 Vm that contains the lurking bitblt fixes.
>> However someone needs to confirm then they exist in all the VM that become the basis for 4.0
>>
>>
>> On 2010-03-13, at 7:15 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand it, parts of the image are indeed under different
>>> copyrights. As hard as it is to grok, copyright and license, it would
>>> seem, are separate issues. I Am Not A Lawyer. If the SFC lawyers come
>>> back asking us to revise this part, I'll do it.
>>>
>>> I used the Mac VM that John recommended. Not sure about the BitBlt
>>> tests. Isn't that a known issue? I thought I saw a thread about that.
>>> Seems like something that should be fixable after 4.0. 4.0 roughly
>>> equals 3.10.2...
>>
>> --
>> ===========================================================================
>> John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
>> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
>> ===========================================================================
>
>
>