[Vm-dev] Re: [Squeak 4.0] RC3 is out
Ken G. Brown
kbrown at mac.com
Sun Mar 14 02:38:28 UTC 2010
Well my point is if you are eventually going to need basic. full, and core or whatever, you should start off with the naming convention to allow for that.
And you might want to consider having some way to know what the starting point was for each image, whether it be in the readme file or by naming conventions.
There should be some way of knowing that the images were 3.10.2-7159 based, now called 4.0. You always want to keep track of how each was derived in case you need to do it over again. Saving the eact script versions that created each would be a good idea too. And never ever change anything in a script without changing the script version number.
And once you release, you never want to change a zipped file without changing the version. People may depend on it.
A person doesn't want to redownload something later on only to find someone has sneakily changed it and now it is different.
Ken G. Brown
At 6:03 PM -0800 3/13/10, Casey Ransberger apparently wrote:
>Here's the plan:
>When I hear these bits are good, I'm going to cut a new directory for
>4.0. It's contents will looks just like what's in the 3.10 directory,
>with the above files swapped in. The reason why you're seeing those
>files, and in particular why it doesn't make sense, is that you're
>seeing them out of context. The reason why you aren't seeing the other
>files and directories that generally accompany them is: the other
>files don't need to change for the 4.0 release. I will in effect be
>copying the entire 3.10 directory to 4.0, and then remove/replace the
>files that correspond to what's in the final release candidate.
>The reason I'm scripting everything is, if there's a last minute
>change to for example, the license text, I don't want to have to go to
>all the trouble to copy and zip everything manually; it's time
>consuming and error prone. I'm set up now to take a change to e.g.,
>the version of the VM, or something in the image, type 'make' and then
>build and package the whole multiplatform distribution in a minimum of
>The reason Squeak4.0-basic.zip doesn't make sense is: traditionally
>the Unix VM was packaged separately from the image, sources, and
>changes files. I didn't see anything about 4.0 which warranted
>changing this policy.
>My goal with this release was to get to a ship-able artifact as
>quickly as possible while tolerating last minute changes. I very
>nearly refused to update the Mac and Windows VMs in the zip files as
>well, since these are really orthogonal to the mission of Squeak 4.0,
>but I had some extra time so I did it anyway.
>In short, it will make more sense when these files are in their final
>locations on the ftp server.
>On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Ken G. Brown <kbrown at mac.com> wrote:
>> Good work.
>> I was wondering why you needed to go to all the trouble with scripting and whatnot for Mac?
>> Don't you just drag the files into a folder and cntl-Compress from the context menu?
>> Might I suggest some clear thought on naming conventions and directory organization?
>> For example I see:
>> So how does Squeak4.0-basic.zip differ from the others? Is Squeak4.0-mac.zip = basic or something else?
>> When I unzip a file, I expect to get a folder with the same name. Other people don't I know, but it might be something to consider.
>> I always try to think - write once, read many.
>> Try to have a naming convention that will keep the confusion demons away for the long term future.
>> Ken G. Brown
>> At 11:28 AM -0800 3/13/10, Casey Ransberger apparently wrote:
>>>Ah, I should have made a statement about what's changed since RC2.
>>> - Newer Windows VM (3.11.8)
>>> - Newer Mac VM (4.2.2beta1U, with SparklePlugin.bundle removed, it had issues)
>>>This should make things a bit more convenient for folks intent on
>>>doing the closure bootstrap.
>>>The reason I removed SparklePlugin.bundle: it had some symlinks to
>>>stuff in the author's local directories (instead of the correct system
>>>directories) that were breaking my build process. I took John's advice
>>>and simply removed the bundle. I also fired up the VM to do a sanity
>>>check and make sure it still worked.
>>>Thanks everyone! Freedom tastes better than cheese! Say no to mouse traps!
>>>On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Casey Ransberger
>>><ron.spengler at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> People of Squeak,
>>>> The RC3 distribution of Squeak 4.0 is now available at:
>>>> Please chip in, test it out, and reply to this thread if you see any
>>>> problems. Classes of problems I'd consider blockers:
>>>> - Broken VM
>>>> - Corrupt file
>>>> - Things to do with the image that potentially block relicensing
>>>> If all is well, I will go ahead and roll the 4.0 directory structure
>>>> with all of the other files one usually finds there.
>>>> Casey Ransberger
More information about the Vm-dev