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.
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.
On 27/08/04 23:53, "Hernan Tylim" htylim@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
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
Hernan and all guys in shrinking bussiness.
Starting from 3.7basic 1) Locate makeSqueaklandRelease . 2) Select method and find:
"Now remove larger parts" 3) Edit following line to: Smalltalk discard3D; discardSpeech . 4) Acept 5) In Workspace do: Smalltalk makeSqueaklandRelease. System should reach self halt: 'Ready to condense changes or sources'. Procedd and in a Workspace do: Smalltalk condenseChanges Smalltalk condenseSources
You should finish with no obsoleteClasses and system shrink from 14 Mb to 9.8 Mb without losing any . When ask for saving sources , I pick 3.7Fullbasic.
Edgar
on 08/27/2004 05:29 pm, Doug Way at dway@mailcan.com wrote:
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). [snip ] But it makes the .changes file a lot smaller (11MB instead of 20MB).
It makes the uncompressed file a lot smaller, but the .changes file compresses to a fifth of that.
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.
on 08/27/2004 11:29 pm, Doug Way at dway@mailcan.com wrote:
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.
Perhaps, but active development takes place with the Full Squeak Multimedia Distribution and that is our definitive reference not the smaller subset.
Thoughts?
I think it is a bad idea to redefine the concept of what the Full distribution contains.
As to the concept of providing a Squeak3.7g2FullCondensed.zip I do not believe it has any significant advantage to the clients you state you are trying to aid. It is not the difference in time to transfer 10M instead of 12M that helps someone with a slow connection. If you really want to help them (which I do not think is needed), give them the option to transfer twelve separate 1M documents.
Since you've already published Squeak3.7g2Full.zip with the changes condensed and removed Squeak3.7g1Full.zip that had all the ChangeSets, I'd prefer that you replaced Squeak3.7g2Full.zip with a complete one.
Thanks, Lantz
Am 29.08.2004 um 10:19 schrieb Lantz Rowland:
Perhaps, but active development takes place with the Full Squeak Multimedia Distribution and that is our definitive reference not the smaller subset.
3.7 this was not true. And it it even difficult: The tools do not tell me if I change a methdod that is part of package. This than has the consequence that people thend to send changesets that change both image and packages, making it harder to add those changesets to the updatestream. (that is, somebody needs to re-do the changeset to omit the package parts).
So I used the base image to do all harvesting, reviews and image-related development, not the full image.
I think it is a bad idea to redefine the concept of what the Full distribution contains.
when doing the condenseSources, I thought that we did that ("source for major, changes for minor). That was wrong, so I will redo the image. (There is another problem that the Fullmage tool removes the changeset-history. If we keep all changes, we should keep those, too).
Marcus
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Doug Way -
Hernan Tylim -
Lantz Rowland -
Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene -
Marcus Denker