Shrinking alpha image (was Re: Proposal to get to the triad)

Doug Way dway at riskmetrics.com
Thu Mar 20 00:08:23 UTC 2003


Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> Actually, I don't object at all to shrinking 3.6alpha. I do (somewhat)
> object to starting to do releases with two image, for the simple reason
> that it's more work for you to get both perfect. However -
> 
> 1. You're the release master, and your word is law. If you actually do
> want to release two images, no problem.
> 2. There is absolutely no problem at all that I can see to making
> releases of only the shrunk version, and supplying an official
> "Basic->Full" (or whatever we're calling them) script. I definitely
> agree that it's better than maintaining the other direction. Mostly
> because that makes what we actually maintain (the released image)
> simpler, which is really the benefit we desire.

I actually don't think it would be too big a deal to release two images.  The
Full image release would simply be the Basic image release with the
Basic->Full script loaded.  The Basic->Full script could even include a
pointer to a "Worlds of Squeak" project package on SqueakMap, so the Full
image would need as little manual tweaking as possible on my part.  (Hopefully
none.)

Even if we only had a single image release of only the shrunk (Basic) version,
we'd still want the Full image that people generated themselves to be in
reasonable working order, so we can't really avoid the work of making sure the
Full image works.  So we might as well make the two images available
officially.

There would be some extra work the first time around in updating the
squeak.org downloads page (and other pages) to point to both images. 
Newcomers would be encouraged to download the Full image by default in order
to get the full Squeak experience, but the shrunken image would also be
available for those who needed it.

- Doug Way



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list