Hi, My 2 cents are to make both versions available, one with sources condensed and one not.
I think that its very important to have images small enough so someone with dialup would still want to download and try squeak. Also I dare to say that the big majority of squeak users do not need or even know that they have this history available. So I think condensing sources is the right decision.
But for us, the 1% :) that want to have this history, make it available too.
Regards, Hernán
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Doug Way Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 9:30 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Condense Changes for 3.7 Full?
Marcus & I were just discussing whether we should do a "Smalltalk condenseChanges" for the 3.7 Full release.
Normally, we don't do it for point releases (3.4, 3.5, 3.6). You lose the intermediate method version information, except for the latest version, plus the first version in the .sources file. But it makes the .changes file a lot smaller (11MB instead of 20MB).
For the reasons I state below, I think it might be reasonable to condenseChanges on the Full image to make it a more reasonable download size. But leave the Basic image alone.
Thoughts?
- Doug
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marcus Denker denker@iam.unibe.ch Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:37:46 PM America/Detroit To: Doug Way dway@mailcan.com Subject: Re: Full Image 3.7g for testing
Am 27.08.2004 um 23:25 schrieb Doug Way:
On Friday, August 27, 2004, at 04:30 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
( I did a Smalltalk condenseChanges).
... I'm on the fence on whether we should do condenseChanges. I don't think it's been done in the past anytime during
Squeak 2.x or
3.x. (except of course when we started over with new
.changes at 2.0
and 3.0)
When you condense changes you lose all of the intermediate method versions, except for the most recent and the one in the .sources file. (I believe) This would be inconvenient for Basic image development, and it might mess up the ConflictChecker. On
the other
hand, maybe it's okay for the Full image to have condensed
changes,
since active development on the image itself really just
happens in
Basic, not Full. And of course the .changes file becomes much smaller. So I guess doing it for Full would be okay with me.