Squeak 3.8 status

Michael Rueger michael at squeakland.org
Thu Aug 5 19:44:14 UTC 2004


Marcus Denker wrote:


> I don't think that this would work... at least not as long as we use an 
> update-stream.
> It's realy easy to destroy the system with an update. We had example of 
> faulty updates
> that manage to slip into the stream and replacing the changesets on the 
> server is of
> course possible, but it disrupts everything somehow...

Back in the SqC days we had an internal and an external update stream.
The internal one was pretty much unfiltered, living dangerous etc. 
EVeryone living on that stream was used to having backups of their 
image, ready to go back at any time. Then, when updates seemed ok for a 
while, they were transfered to the external stream. This way it was easy 
to retract updates, as they hadn't reached "everyone" yet, but only 
people who knew how to, and were actually willing to, roll back the changes.

Re-establishing that separation might help speeding up the harvesting 
process as it would spread the actual testing of an update across all 
internal stream users.
Maybe naming these streams differently could help with acceptance ;-)

Michael




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list