[Vm-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Crashes: Pharo 1.3 + Cog VM 13307

[Esteban Lorenzano]

Thanks for the explanation, Chris. 

I was thinking on using some of the eliot versions with my own builds, like this: 2222.01, and maybe unix/windows guys could do the same, so we need a prefix, something like 2222.M01 for mac, U01 for unix, W01 for windows... 
... or something like that. 
Anyway... this discussion borns in pharo list, but concerns more to vm-dev list. I'm copying email there :)

cheers,
Esteban

El 21/12/2011, a las 9:28p.m., Chris Cunningham escribió:

> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> and yes, I know what you feel about version numbers... we (guys working with vm) should find an unique versioning number. But is hard, right now we have this different numbering:
>> 
>> 1) Eliot has his own version number (I think based on svn commit version)
>> 2) Each platform (Linux, Windows and Mac) has his own versioning too.
>> 3) There are also 4.x versions alive (for mac, at least)
>> 
>> I also don't know what does each version means (3.8 for unix, etc.). I named cocoa versions 6.x because older versions based on carbon where 5.x, so I thought: changing from carbon to cocoa is important enough to have a new major version... but I dunno.
>> 
> 
> The old numbering system came from pre-Pharo days, when the VM was
> just for Squeak.  In those days, the VM number was meant to sync with
> the current Squeak image release - so vm 3.8 for Unix was the VM that
> accompanied the Squeak 3.8 release, compiled for the Unix platform.
> Each platform (and, indeed, each variant - such as Cocoa/Carbon) would
> use the same main version number, but with some other distinction
> built on (and these did change by platform).
> 
> Eliot's VM now supports a wide range of roughly compatible Smalltalks
> (or near smalltalks), such as Pharo, Squeak, Croquet, Cuis, Newspeak,
> and probably others.  In that environment, with each near-smalltalk
> having their own numbering schemes, the old numbering convention just
> doesn't make sense.  So, his using the apparent SVN commit number
> makes as much sense as anything - probably a lot more than some.
> 
> As for what you should call the Pharo branded and tweaked versions,
> that is obviously up to you.  I would suggest finding something that
> makes it easy for us users to figure out which version of the PharoVM
> works with which Pharo image, if possible.
> 
> -Chris
>