On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:02:48PM -0500, Yanni Chiu wrote:
> On 16/01/13 11:12 AM, Frank Shearar wrote:
> >
> >Fine, you're right, SqueakV44.sources being a copy of
> >SqueakV41.sources is a bit lame. If you like, the error is that we
> >didn't condense sources, and we should for every release.
> 
> It's not clear that any error was made. The "plan" apparently was to 
> condense sources "non-destructively". But, condense sources is 
> destructive, at the moment. So, without doing the work to make it a 
> non-destructive condense, then the only option was to do the same as 
> before - which is to use SqueakV41.sources.
> 
> >
> >Well. I would be fine with either a condense on a major release or a
> >minor release, if it was ALWAYS true. Consistency is the mother of
> >automation. But that's not where we are.
> 
> SqueakV41.sources is an anomaly. That's where we're at. My original 
> point was that introducing SqueakV44.sources as an "alias" name for 
> SqueakV41.sources does not improve the current situation, IMHO.

+1

Dave