On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:15 AM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>>     Fabio's kindly done most of the changes.  But some questions remain
>> for
>> more general discussion.  See below.
>>
>> Fabio,  thanks so much for doing this, and so quickly!
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>     who will update http://squeak.org/downloads/ to include the 5.0
>>> release?
>>>
>>> a) I suggest that the 5.0 all-in-one have a line in the left-hand table
>>> that includes the 4.6 release and that it precede the 4.6 release in the
>>> list.
>>>
>>
>> Done.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> b) the Trunk link points to TrunkImage.zip which contains a non-Spur
>>> image.
>>>
>>
>> So this is the biggie.  What should we do?
>>
>> - add a Trunk 5.0 build with a different link?  (Noooooo)
>>
>> - change  http://build.squeak.org/job/SqueakTrunk to build what it says
>> (Yessss please, who can do this?)
>>
>> - add a Squeak 4.6 build job?  Is that even worth it any more considering
>> 4.6 is released and stable?  If it is then what should it build?  David?
>
> I think that if we have a job called "SqueakTrunk" then it should be
> building the actual current trunk image, which is a 5.0 Spur image.
>
> Ideally I would suggest renaming the current "SqueakTrunk" job to
> something like "SqueakTrunk_Old".


"Old" things sometimes get mistreated (e.g. accidental deletion,
confused with other "old" things over years.)
How about something topical like SqueakTrunk_V3Legacy?
cheers -ben


> Leave it disabled until it gets fixed,
> and if it does not get fixed in a reasonable time (say a month or two)
> then delete it. Meanwhile get new new job up and running for the real
> SqueakTrunk builds.
>
> I do not know how that Jenkins job is maintained (it's done in a Ruby make
> system, which is over my head), so treat this just as an opinion.
>
> Dave