dean

You are right. We have a 3.9 because it happened to happen and for a 
process point of view I agree with you.
Now I think that the refactoring of String is in 3.8 is good.
We will try to avoid to have 3.9 and 3.10 open at the same time....

Stef

On 18 avr. 05, at 23:40, Dean_Swan at Mitel.COM wrote:

>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Running concurrent development streams without a very strong 
> management structure is just asking for trouble.  We do this on some 
> projects at my day job, and it is always a struggle to pull changes 
> forward from a numerically lower version that was being worked on 
> simultaneously.  IMO, 3.8gamma should have been frozen and declared 
> "final" before people launched into 3.9 alpha.
>
> When something is declared "gamma", to me, that should mean that "This 
> is essentially the final release except for fixing show stopping bugs 
> reported in the gamma build." or something similar.  Why is there no 
> "3.8 final" yet, and why is there a "3.9 alpha" and changes still 
> being made to both?
>
> I find the current state of affairs troubling, and have just stuck 
> with 3.7 for anything I am working on until sanity returns to Squeak 
> development.
>
> It seems like 3.8 has been going on for quite a long time now (i.e. > 
> 6 months).  Andreas is a very smart guy, but either 3.8 isn't really 
> in "gamma", or his refactoring should not be in the 3.8 "gamma" 
> stream.  There are too many open questions for this refactoring to go 
> into a "gamma" build, .  Mind you, I like his refactoring, but I think 
> this is more a question of development process.  It seems that this 
> refactoring is more of an improvement than a fix for show stoppers, so 
> it shouldn't go into a stream that is supposedly in "gamma", no?
>
> Am I misunderstanding the meaning of "gamma" for Squeak development 
> streams?
>
>                                         -Dean
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug Way <dway at mailcan.com>
> Sent by: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>
> 04/16/2005 05:47 PM
> Please respond to The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>        
>         To:        The general-purpose Squeak developers list 
> <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>         cc:        
>         Subject:        Re: 3.8/3.9 Divergence
>
>
>
>
>  I think the current situation is somewhat unusual, in that a major
>  update (the String refactoring) was added to a x.y beta/gamma release,
>  but not added to the following x.y+1 alpha release.
>
>  In this case I think it was warranted... basically there were already
>  some major changes to String made early in 3.8alpha (because of m17n),
>  so if we're going to revamp those changes, we should really try to do
>  it in the same release if at all possible.  (So we don't have 3.7 with
>  old-style Strings, 3.8 with major String changes, and 3.9 with yet 
> more
>  major String changes.)  Even if this means delaying 3.8 a bit.
>
>  And also, there will be 3.8.1, 3.8.2 etc releases which can contain 
> bug
>  fixes.
>
>  Actually, I don't think 3.9alpha had really diverged that much from
>  3.8gamma (before the String changes)... the only major change was
>  Diego's look changes, but a lot of that was just image/preference
>  changes.  So I don't think it will be too hard to port the String
>  changes forward from 3.8gamma to 3.9alpha.  I guess the idea is to
>  hammer out the (String change) problems in the 3.8gamma version before
>  porting it forward to 3.9alpha.
>
>  So in summary, I don't think this will be a particularly common
>  situation.
>
>  - Doug
>
>
>  On Apr 15, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Ken Causey wrote:
>
>  > As Bert's chart on http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/275 shows the
>  > sequence of updates between for 3.8 and 3.9 is quite complicated. 
>  At
>  > times (including now) we've had a situation where there are updates 
> in
>  > the 3.8 update stream that are not in the 3.9 update stream.  Now 
> maybe
>  > I just haven't been paying much attention in the past but this is 
> not a
>  > common occurrence in the history of Squeak development I don't 
> believe.
>  > Right now it is causing us in the Janitors team a bit of a headache 
> as
>  > it's a bit of a toss up at times to what image a given fix may or 
> may
>  > not apply.  We've had a policy of testing everything against a fully
>  > updated 3.9 image and this has been fine in general but is right 
> now a
>  > problem with all the String updates that are in 3.8 but not in 3.9.
>  >
>  > What I'm wondering is whether we expect this to be a more common
>  > situation in the future than it has been in the past.  To be more
>  > explicit do we expect it to be not uncommon in the future for there 
> to
>  > be a situation in which y.x has some number of updates that y.(x+1)
>  > does
>  > not?  If so then we (Janitors and friends) will need to plan for 
> this I
>  > think.
>  >
>  > Ken
>  >
>
>
>
>
>