[Squeakfoundation]Re: releasing SqueakMap (was "One more update for 3.2.1?"... again...)
Roger Vossler
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:15:18 -0700
Hi Gang,
Boy, do I agree with John on this one. I had hoped that 3.4 would be a
stable, finalized
version of 3.2-4956, plus a few cleaned up details and SM, and said so
in a recent
message to Scott Wallace on the squeak-dev list. Unfortunately, someone
took issue
with the tone of that message which got lost in the noise.
I have SWT, 2.8, and 3.2-4956, plus two VMs (3.2.8b9 and 3.2.2) that
John and Marcel
were kind enough to help me with. I'm sticking with this combo until
the next stable release
is finalized before I even begin to even think about upgrading. The
Squeak power-users
can enjoy themselves with pre-alpha, alpha, and beta code. John's buddy
(client?) is
absolutely right about the risk of using alpha and/or beta software.
Cheers, Roger.....
On Wednesday, Nov 20, 2002, at 23:29 America/Denver, John M McIntosh
wrote:
> Well I should wade in and point out a few things that I've noticed
> over the years.
>
> a) Many users will use 3.xFINAL as the preferred deployment package
> because they feel 3.x+1Alpha is too experimental for them to risk
> using because they are not power-squeak users. In fact I still
> encounter people who are using 2.8 or 3.0 because until recently 3.2
> was 3.2gama. Mm tonight I was going to download 3.4alpha to some ones
> desktop but he pointed out he didn't run alpha or beta software on his
> machine because it was too risky so I had to promise that 3.4ALPHA
> wasn't going to hose his machine (a true story).
>
> I'd think one should finalize 3.2 and stuff SM into it mostly because
> that's a way for people to distribute content/apps/changesets/? in the
> 3.2. environment. I say finalize, although it's final mostly because
> there's a few patchs etc from 3.3 (I think?) I'm sure one can of
> course say this SM is 3.2 or 3.4 or 3.2/3.4 compatible...
>
> Ps zap any thoughts of 3.2.x (tertiary numbers).
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 05:42 PM, Doug Way wrote:
>
>>
>> Craig Latta wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Doug--
>>>
>>>> Also, I suppose if the goal is to move 3.4 toward a release
>>>> relatively soon (in the next month or two?) then getting the SM
>>>> bootstrap into the 3.2 series becomes less urgent.
>>>
>>> Why can't we leave 3.2 alone and make 3.4 the venue of
>>> SqueakMap's
>>> mainstream debut?
>>>
>>> Will someone please summarize the rationale for revisiting a
>>> "final"
>>> release here, and for getting into tertiary version numbers?
>>
>> ....
>
>> Now that we're working toward 3.4, and we've decided that it should
>> be finalized relatively soon, I suppose there wasn't a great need to
>> split off 3.2. Oh well. :-) However, there were a lot of
>> 3.2-compatible packages already in place on SqueakMap, so it seemed
>> like SqueakMap should have some sort of debut in the 3.2 world. (I
>> was thinking in my recent message that since we already split off
>> 3.2.1, we might as well add the SqueakMap bootstrap too, but that's
>> not super-important.)
>>
>>
> --
> =======================================================================
> ====
> John M. McIntosh <johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
> =======================================================================
> ====
>
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>