[SM in 3.2.1] Yes we need to get this cleaned up somehow - there are probably quite a few newbies encountering 3.2 images out there.
Unless if we decide to make 3.4 *really* short, like a month, rather than two. I don't mind either way.
goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
:-) Yes, we need to fix the Package Loader to "treat" 3.2.1 as 3.2 when filtering for versions. Or something to the same effect. Perhaps just use "beginsWith:" instead of "="? :-) And some other things.
So basically, we'll have SM categories for image versions like 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and they will match actual image versions like 3.2.1, 3.3a, 3.4a and so forth?
Ok, it'll go into the next version. We will need to clean up the extranous tags like 3.4alpha, though (I don't think we'll lose much precision by it - anyway the category should be view as an indication, not a promise, since we're not including update number).
Daniel
Scott, there was some discussion earlier about adding the SqueakMap bootstrap update to 3.2.1, similar to what was added to 3.4alpha. I think we should do this, since easy access to SqueakMap was the main point of the 3.2.1 release, I believe. (Would you be able to just re-use update #5105?)
However, the one thing we should probably wait for is Daniel's update to the SMLoader package, so that the 3.2-compatible packages will show up in the list. (See below. Almost done with that, Daniel? (nudge) :-) ) Once this is done, perhaps you could go ahead and add the update to 3.2.1.
- Doug
danielv@netvision.net.il wrote:
goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
:-) Yes, we need to fix the Package Loader to "treat" 3.2.1 as 3.2 when filtering for versions. Or something to the same effect. Perhaps just use "beginsWith:" instead of "="? :-) And some other things.
So basically, we'll have SM categories for image versions like 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and they will match actual image versions like 3.2.1, 3.3a, 3.4a and so forth?
Ok, it'll go into the next version.
Hi--
Doug writes:
...easy access to SqueakMap was the main point of the 3.2.1 release...
I was under the impression that 3.2.1 wasn't a "release", but a place to get some stuff organized outside the mainstream release sequence.
Regardless, I have some concerns... I think having more than one non-major number in a version stamp is an unecessary source of confusion, as is creating a new version number logically lower than an existing one. "3.2.1" is lower than *two* previously-discussed stamps (3.3 and 3.4), one of which has been aborted (3.3). That seems like a lot of unecessary confusion to me.
I think, at least in the future, we should feel free to just create (and cancel :) new higher minor releases as necessary, and be diligent about the meanings of the release stage names ("alpha", etc.; see, e.g., http://netjam.org/smalltalk/versions.html). It'd also be nice to be able to look up a list of feature highlights for each release (old, current, and planned), without having to go through old email. (I didn't see anything like that in a cursory search through web space.)
thanks,
-C
-- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist craig@netjam.org www.netjam.org/resume Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Craig Latta -
danielv＠netvision.net.il -
Doug Way