"Peter van Rooijen \(squeak-dev\)" <squeak at vanrooijen.com> wrote:
[BIG SNIP]
> It doesn't take much time to see the source of the problem, which is
> incorrect name resolution logic during the method compilation process. I
> would certainly call this a major bug, but I've already said all I want to
> say about that now ;-).

Sure, it sounds like a major bug. But still - it is the first time I
even heard of it!
So there simply can not have been many people gotten bitten by this.

Te problem here is that if you had posted about this simply a week
earlier then we could have taken action. We have had both a beta and a
gamma period. Those periods are there for a reason.
Yesterday we had the release.

> > However, we should certainly consider the fix for 3.7alpha.  Have you
> > already submitted a [FIX]?
> 
> Like I said, I have not. But I would be happy to *if* we agree that this
> wants fixing.

Of course we agree it wants fixing. BUT... mind you it might already be
fixed. It sure sounds like a Compiler problem and there is a brand new
Compiler just waiting to get into 3.7. So the issue might already be
solved.

Can anyone with the new Compiler check/confirm this? Anthony?

> I have no desire to write the fix, test it, find out how to submit it (is it
> okay to send a message to this list with a zipped changeset attached?),

Just use "mail to list" in the changesorter. Dead simple, it does it all
for you.

> submit it, to be then told that this is a fundamental change for what is not
> a serious problem (because no one complained about it in years), and it
> might break something (although it should not, it might), so it won't get
> in.

Of course it will "get in" - but not in 3.6! Because 3.6 was released
yesterday.

> After all, a major part of my wanting this corrected is to be able to run my
> programs in an undoctored Squeak image. If that is not in the cards, I might
> as well make the changes without submitting them as a fix, or simply not
> bother about my programs running on Squeak.

Come on now, nobody has said we ain't gonna fix it. But we can't
perpetually keep fixing stuff because then we would never get to a
release!

If you submit a fix, it will get reviewed and harvested and quite
shortly pushed out into the 3.7alpha stream.

> BTW, there is a funny twist to this. I believe the license requires one to
> share changes made to certain parts of the system. I don't know exactly
> which parts of the system qualify, but I would not be surprised if the parts
> affected here do infact qualify. Then after that, I don't know what action
> constitutes sharing the fix :-).
> 
> So, I would appreciate some guidance in this respect.

Submit the FIX and behold, it will get in. If it doesn't suck of course.
:-)

> Best regards,
> 
> Peter van Rooijen
> Amsterdam

regards, Göran