[V3dot10] making and recording changes

Bert Freudenberg bert at freudenbergs.de
Fri Jan 19 10:31:49 UTC 2007

Am Jan 19, 2007 um 5:13  schrieb David T. Lewis:

> On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:44:56PM +0100, stephane ducasse wrote:
>> On 18 janv. 07, at 18:26, Ralph Johnson wrote:
>>> On 1/18/07, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse at free.fr> wrote:
>>>> It seems to me that I already said that. But ask and I will repeat.
>>> We did talk, but somehow I never realized that.
>>>> Ralph this is what we DID for 3.9.
>>> So, why did people complain that you did not have an update stream?
>> because it was slow (we did not use MCConfig) and sometimes we  
>> could not
>> really chain well so we had to do changes by hand. So it was
>> necessary to load from
>> a given image. But this was not the process the problem just the
>> difficulties we encountered.
>> Because people like to complain.
> <gripe>
> I do not usually like to complain, but I am going to do so now. There
> was no update stream for 3.9. I had to download complete images in
> order to do testing, which means that I could not easily maintain an
> image to use help for testing 3.9 updates. It required a lot of time
> and effort just to download the latest image, move things from that
> last test image into the new one, add packages that I personally
> maintain, and so forth. I did try to help, but usually it was too
> much work and not enough fun, so I did not put much time into it.
> Neither did anyone else, so you and Marcus ended up doing a whole
> lot of work without much support from other people.
> A real update stream is much better, because it permits someone like
> me to maintain a "bleeding edge" testing image and keep it up to date
> with the release stream. Any time an interesting problem shows up on
> Mantis, it is possible to work on it in the testing image and try
> out proposed fixes. That's a nice way to spend an hour or two over
> a cup of coffee.
> I don't care if the update stream uses change sets or something
> else, but I would really like to see an update stream again so that
> hundreds or maybe thousands of Squeak users can stay up to date and
> do their part to help with testing.
> I would also add that a real update stream provides a clear,  
> documented
> record of what went into the image, when it happened, who it came
> from, and why it was done. The change sets identify their authors,
> and method changes are properly stamped with (real) author initials
> and time stamps. I cannot think of any acceptable excuse for losing
> all of this information, yet somehow that is exactly what we have
> done with our "improved" processes.
> OK, I'm done complaining.
> </gripe>

I know this will make Stef and Marcus furious again, but this is  
pretty much how I felt about 3.9. I didn't have much time to actually  
do something myself, about the only thing I could contribute was my  
experience with MCConfigs - big kudos to Marcus and Stef for pulling  
this through against all odds. The end result (3.9) *is* much nicer  
than 3.8. Nevertheless, having an accountable history of what  
happened is invaluable. For example, even if we come up with a new  
sources/changes scheme it's next to impossible to redo 3.9 starting  
from 3.8, to get a full history, right?

- Bert -

More information about the V3dot10 mailing list