On 17 December 2012 12:22, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 December 2012 12:12, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> On 2012-12-16, at 22:16, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://ftp.squeak.org/4.4/Squeak4.4-12303.zip
>>>
>>> I suggest we use a consistent naming convention that conveys the
>>> general ("4.4") and specific ("-12303") version information.  After a
>>> week has gone by for the community to download and verify it, there is
>>> no need to deploy yet another (renamed) image, so the "candidate" is
>>> truly a candidate for release -- the one that was tested.  Then all we
>>> have to do is [ANN]ounce.
>
> I would in general be happy with this convention, but right now it's a
> lie: this image is 12303 + my ReleaseBuilder and Morphic hacks, which
> are in the Inbox (deliberately so) and NOT in trunk.

I've just released (with help from Bert), the next iteration;
http://ftp.squeak.org/4.4/Squeak4.4-RC2.tgz

This fixes the 500 at 400 problem, the doubled Welcome Workspaces (not
immediately apparent because the new windows lay on top of the old
windows) and forces #useOldNetwork:.

frank

> If people are OK with what they see (other than the 500 at 400 glitch
> Stef caught), I can move these into trunk, and we can have a 12303+n
> version.
>
> frank
>
>>> That it is in the "4.4" release directory rather than the "4.4alpha"
>>> directory, anyone will know this is THE candidate for release.
>>
>> Nobody can know this from the URL. It looks like an actual release, because *nothing* indicates that this is not a stable version.
>>
>>>  In the
>>> past we have tagged alpha images as, e.g., "Squeak4.2alpha-10160.zip"
>>> -- which could still do for alpha images if we want to be sure the
>>> names themselves carry a "quality disclaimer" tag.
>>
>> I'd prefer this, yes.  Although we're way past alpha. This is a release candidate, after all:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>
>>