[squeak-dev] [4.2] - VM <-> image release coordination

Chris Muller asqueaker at gmail.com
Mon Jan 3 20:14:56 UTC 2011


Excellent, thanks Eliot.  That's been the plan for 4.2 all along, I
see no reason to abandon that now.

I am currently trying to get a 4.2 RC1 built and saved under some
interpreter VM.  I will need access or assistance for uploading it to
ftp.squeak.org (preferably access, since I'd like to build the image
myself).

Then, I would like to have just under 4 more weeks, until 11:59pm,
1/30/2011, for "last call" for 4.2.  We've been testing for some time
now, we seem to have a stable, worthy release.  Throughout January, we
will need to test (and fix) on all platforms, document, improve
aesthetics, and update web-sites.

We will push the final release out the week of 1/31.

VM Release Manager:  Does this time-frame seem doable for a final
release of the simple-stack VM?

 - Chris

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Levente wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we should wait for the new VMs, before releasing the new images.
>>>
>>> Hi Levente,
>>>
>>> I did agree, but now that Eliot is on a tear with a new code
>>> generator, the first official release might still be some weeks away.
>>> Someone please correct me if that is a misstatement.
>>>
>>> It seems unlikely 4.2 will be incompatible with whatever ends up being
>>> the first official Cog release.  We should consider pushing it out the
>>> door so we can re-open the trunk to new featurey.
>>
>> That's right, Cog's recent improvements introduced some instability. So I
>> think we should release Squeak 4.2 with SqueakVM only and postpone the
>> multi-VM release. We can also make the release cycle of Squeak 4.3 shorter
>> to catch up with the two release per year policy and deliver the VM
>> improvements earlier. I'm also sure that a lot of improvements will be done
>> till April/May on both image and VM side.
>
> It would be my preference to release with the Cog VM using the naive
> SimpleStackBasedCogit code generator.  After all that's worth at least 3x
> over the standard VM whereas the unstable StackToregisterMappingCogit is
> only ~ 8% faster than SimpleStackBasedCogit.  It's quite easy for me to
> generate either; the two coexist in the same VMMaker.
> best
> Eliot
>>
>>
>> Levente
>>
>>>
>>>  - Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list