Hi Scott,

So, it would appear that it's prudent for us folks out here in Newbie 
Land to wait
for 60 to 90 days after a final release is finally final and if it does 
not move/wiggle
during that time, it probably won't. :-)

I figure that Squeak 2.8 was SqC's first "book release", meaning that it 
was good
enough for people to write books about it (Thanks to Mark Guzdial), 
teach it,
learn it, write serious applications for it, etc. Squeak 3.2 appears to 
be shaping
up as SqC's second "book release". Squeak 2.8 achieved the development of
the core environment which apparently has not changed all that much since
then. The trek from Squeak 2.8 to Squeak 3.2 achieved the addition and
refinement of the Morphic environment, approximately doubling the code 
base
in the process. Yes, I realize that there was some Morphic stuff in 
Squeak 2.8,
but it was just getting off the ground at that point.

Is this a reasonable assessment?

Cheers, Roger.....

On Monday, August 5, 2002, at 10:21 PM, Scott Wallace wrote:

> Hi, Roger,
>
> One can take heart from the historical precedent of Squeak 3.0. After 
> its "final" release, only eight more updates were ever issued for it.
>
> Thus, we don't believe in issuing endless updates for an established 
> release, but we *do* believe in using the update mechanism, sparingly, 
> to clean up a release.
>
> Now that the actual 3.2 release is out, the criterion for admissibility 
> of further updates to it narrows considerably, down to a few bug fixes 
> and significant performance tweaks.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>   -- Scott
>
> PS:  Squeak's online updating mechanism has been one of our major 
> strengths for years, dating back to well before commercial systems 
> started having their own dynamic-updating mechanisms.  It serves us 
> well not only for sharing enhancements in our leading-edge systems, but 
> also for cleaning up problems in established releases as well.  I think 
> that most of us would consider the ability to iron out wrinkles in a 
> release using this mechanism to be a virtue, not a problem.
>
> PPS:  The long, long winter of 3.2gamma was an event entirely out of 
> the ordinary, attributable to a unique combination of factors that are 
> not likely to arise again.
>
>
>
> At 7:04 PM -0600 8/5/02, Roger Vossler wrote:
>> Hi Gang,
>>
>> Scott Wallace announced nine more updates, six of which apply to 
>> Squeak 3.2.
>> Is Squeak 3.2 ever going to be "completed"? It has been in a state of
>> "completion" for over six months.
>>
>> Cheers, Roger.....
>
>
>