[V3dot10] [Q] About updates, take 3

[Bert Freudenberg]

On Jan 24, 2007, at 21:08 , Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

> El 1/24/07 4:35 PM, "Bert Freudenberg" <bert at freudenbergs.de>  
> escribió:
>
>> Well, I didn't actually hear from Ralph that this is what 3.10 is
>> going to do. He has been appointed by the Board to lead the 3.10
>> release. If you start fiddling with changesets now, it's unclear how
>> to get this under one hat with Monticello.
>>
>> 3.9 final is almost completely clean, I think - there seems to be
>> just one last-minute fix by Marcus to the M17n package. This should
>> be cleaned up by making a new package version.
>>
>> With your update applied, the ReleaseBuilder package in the image
>> becomes dirty. I don't think that's a good idea.
>>
>> IMHO your changes should be put into a new version of the
>> ReleaseBuilder package, and that should be loaded into the image,
>> possibly using an update, which possibly could load a configuration
>> (see http://tweak.impara.de/ABOUT/FAQ/MCConfigurationUpdates/). Or
>> use the Installer in that update, or something else to get the
>> package into the image.
>>
>> Or has it been decided not to use Monticello anymore? Either way, it
>> is Ralph's job to decide how to proceed. I'm just offering advice.
>>
>> - Bert -
>
> What I fell is what I putting tons of hours in this and could't  
> have any
> happy.
>
> I was emailing with Ralph long time. And put all what I do public.
>
> I repeat, I do what you say.

No, no, no, don't *do* what I say. I just have suggestions ;-)

> I try to adjust to request.
>
> I use ReleaseBuilder because seems me right reuse it.

Yes, it's the right place to put cleanup stuff. But ReleaseBuilder is  
meant to prepare an image for an actual release. For a person,  
perhaps you, to take a fully updated image and put the finishing  
touches on it - cleaning caches, undeclared, obsoletes, resetting  
author initials, etc. pp. You *never* want to do that to some  
unsuspecting user's image. A call to it certainly should not be put  
into the update stream. It's okay to push the class to a user, but  
you should not actually run it via an update.

> I could have the same final product without using it, creating some  
> script,
> , doing a subclass , just a new class .
>
>  I do mistakes, learning of this, be patient and soon all works .
>
> And many, many thanks for taking time to do advice. Ralph time is  
> valuable
> and I have many now.

Sure. Thank you for the energy you are putting into this, and of  
course thanks to the other folks here, too.

- Bert -