On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 02:53  PM, <Jim.Gettys at hp.com> wrote:

> As a newbie, I can tell you that it is very confusing when you have a  
> system
> with a VM and a bag of bits that must be used together to find that  
> there
> is no VM version to match the bag of bits.

Jim it's a bit more complicated, you see the VM needs only to be  
compiled when a change in
the image or to the VM code itself requires an update. Thus you could  
have a VM that is hundreds of
patch numbers older than the image because none of the image changes  
force a VM change.

  Also there is some loose attempt to ensure  newer and older VM's will  
run older or newer images,
usually across version boundaries

I think the VM maintainers would welcome someone with quite a few days  
of idle time and a
windows, mac and linux machine to construct a matrix of which released  
image version works
with which VM version.

  For the macintosh VM, newer VMs are significantly faster and lots of  
bug fixes than a 3.0 VM,
yet someone using a 3.0 image is unclear on the fact he could migrate  
to a 3.4 VM .

What's not clear is the risk of doing that, certainly I've tried to  
enable such a migration, but no
"formal" documentation/statement exists.

PS any known macintosh VM/image version issues should be emailed to me.
--
======================================================================== 
===
John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
======================================================================== 
===