[V3dot9] new 3.9 category for SM

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Thu Aug 17 19:38:37 UTC 2006


I think that you are right.

On 17 août 06, at 21:10, Ken Causey wrote:

> I'm confused.  Aren't we mixing two different concepts here?  One  
> being
> the image version to which a given package is known to apply.  It just
> happens to be that one image version was labelled '3.9alpha'.  The
> second concept is the 'quality' (aka Maturity Level) of the individual
> package.  In SqueakMap these two concepts are seperate, the first
> labelled 'Squeak Version', which includes the choice of
> 'Squeak3.9-alpha' among others and Maturity level which includes
> 'Bleeding edge', 'Alpha', 'Beta', etc.  Each package can be labelled
> with either or both of these.
>
> Then there is another concept here you seem to want to have applied to
> packages which is some sort of official 'blessing' of the package
> relative to how well it works in a given image version.  This is
> something else entirely, and I'm not sure something that can be easily
> defined.
>
> Ken
>
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 19:45 +0200, goran at krampe.se wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Andrew Chambers <andrew at njoy.name> wrote:
>>> I go with the new 3.9 category - which could be "marketed" to just
>>> contain packages which the maintainers have tested and blessed to  
>>> work
>>> with the squeak 3.9 final.
>>>
>>> I agree that the obsolete Squeak3.9-alpha category only be kept  
>>> around
>>> for a time limited period. During this time period, package  
>>> maintainers
>>> would have ample opportunity to upgrade their package releases from
>>> alpha to final. At the end of said time period I think that any  
>>> alpha
>>> packages still left, should be dropped NOT automatically rolled  
>>> forward.
>>>
>>> How long should this time period be? - 6 months, 1 year - you  
>>> choose.
>>
>> 1 year is a round figure. We can be slow sometimes. :)
>>
>>> But IMHO I would like to see the squeakmap Squeak3.9 (final)  
>>> category to
>>> only include quality blessed packages, not alpha packages that  
>>> may or
>>> may not work.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>
>> I agree with your view. Ok, I will fix it.
>>
>> regards, Gran
>>
>>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list