>
> Towards 3.9.1 . Away from What?
>
> I watch all of Keith's efforts with wonder and some
> trepidation.
>
>   
wonder I like!
> He has very bold plans and when kept after (by others)
> may do an reasonable job of coding.
>
> He is also off acting on his own on what he thinks is
> needed.
>   
Not really true, someone said 3.10 is about process, not features. The 
'process' element of 3.10 has had no discussion, specification or 
roadmapping! 3.10 Itself has been progressing under Edgars 'expert, but 
manual' direction, which I have been monitoring and supporting.

I actually feel undermined a bit by 3.10, since 3.10 was announced as 
being about process, but has continued without actually waiting 
for/investing in that process development. (at least, I should say 
publically, there may be stuff going on behind the scenes of which I am 
not aware.)

I myself have had a vision for the process side of things there is 
nothing revolutionary about it, just pragmatic.

The initial "proposed" 3.9.1 bug fix scripts have been sitting on that 
"experimental" website for several months while I developed 
Rio/Filename/Whatever. If they dont get used now, then they may not get 
used, seems silly to waste them. Many of these fixes are in 3.10 already.

I have been working on some process elements which make perfect logical 
sense and are needed, and their need has been expressed by Ralph on 
occasion: For example I have wriitten a non GUI TestRunner, which may be 
triggered from the commandline, and monitored remotely via a web 
browser. It could be useful for non GUI KernelImages too.

I extended SUnit to allow tests to be flagged as for a particular 
platform or release, and appropriately filtered and to enable many 
different ways of specifying test suites for different purposes. None of 
these are my own ideas, these are things people have requested over the 
years. Some of these features are intended to enable integration with 
SSpec an alternative to SUnit.

If you are going to regression test an image on multiple platforms and 
vms etc then you simply need this feature. If you are going to 
regression test a package on multiple platforms, vms and images then you 
will also desire this feature and a test runner that works in as many 
images as possible, manageable by some externel test running 
program/script. TestReporter may be that runner. Adding these features 
to SUnit its hardly the act of a rebel.
> I see what he is doing as undermining the efforts of
> the 3.10 team.  And I wonder why this is.
>
>   
Undermining 3.10? I added these improvements to TestRunner back in 
september last year!

The 3.10 team has not been working on process much at all, apart from 
the Monticello atomic loading fix.

The 3.10 guys have already taken the 3.9.1 bug fix list as was as a 
starting point.
> Is the November revolution happening in May?
>
>   
What november revolution, is there a plan?

When did 3.8.1 come out? Just after 3.9 if I recall. I might be wrong 
about that though.
> What he is proposing is creating a branch of Squeak
> under his release control and to his taste.
>
>   
Actually I have been talking with Stephane all along about all sorts of 
aspects of this process. Stephane has held back, in order to let 3.10 
roll. But if he would like to take the opportunity to help put some 
icing on his 3.9 cake then why not.
> This is something anyone has a the ability to do in a
> open software enviornment. 
>
> He is appropriating the version number 3.9.1.  Which
> portrays an intention for his release to be a
> successor to 3.9 but close to it.
>
> Now I question whether an independent developer of
> relatively short standing in the squeak community
> should have the right to give an official sounding
> designation to his release.
>
>   
Question away: the way I see it is I have no more or less right than 
anyone else, until someone objects and it goes political, or someone 
else has a better idea.
> Shouldn't the version numbers of squeak belong to the
> squeak foundation and squeak board? 
> In other words it comes close to trademark
> infringement. 
>   
Read the website it says, "This is the site for collaborating on the 
specification for 3.9.1 (Pending objections, this is the de-facto 3.9.1, 
the future of squeak 3.9)"

First, please note the word COLLABORATING, its not about what I want in 
3.9.1. It is and always has been something I have attempted to 
facilitate the community to engage in. The fact that few others have 
actually engaged in it, (and I have invited them) is not my fault, nor 
does it make me a loner at heart, just a loner by default.

The "Essential Fixes" page are some of what I need to support this 
process that is used to generate 3.9.1 itself from this website.

You may think I am being rather forward in saying "this is the de-facto 
3.9.1", but this bug fixed version has been sitting on that website for 
2/3 months now and nothing has been happening to make it happen. It 
needs eaither a) Someone to push it through, to do it and make it 
official, or b) Somone to object and can the idea altogether so that it 
becomes a mini-fork. I left both options open in the above statement. I 
am being more forward now to provike action one way or the other.

So far we have a) Stephane and b) Jerome
> Keith has the power to do what he will.  But calling
> it 3.9.1 implies a blessing for his actions that he
> has not formally asked for nor formally received. Some
>   
I have never called it 3.9.1 without adding a caveat "proposed" , 
"experimental", or "unofficial"
> controls should be put on what he calls it less his
> efforts be taken (by those outside) as authorized and
> encourgaged by the offical board.
>
> Or he should be given that authorization by the board
> to go ahead.  Right now the situation is like having a
> loose canon aboard a ship.  And people should look at
> it in that manner.
>   
I find that insulting actually.

The fact is that I dont have a project I am working on or any hidden 
agenda. I am aiming to serve the squeak community by developing some 
stuff that is needed.

In general I am an initiating, ideas sort of person, and I value and 
need support from finishing, relentless checking type of people such as 
yourself.

It would be helpful if those finishing relentless checking, dotting i's 
and crossing t's sort of people contributed to helping me where I am 
weak, rather than shooting me down.

best regards

Keith

p.s. I hate politics