Dear Craig, Jerome, the board et al.
>      Personally, I'm against people deciding on their own to make
> releases with official-sounding names.
>   
It does not make sense to use any other name for this project than 3.9.1 
for the following reason.

The question that I am putting to the community, as reflected in the 
question I put to squeak-dev, concerning what fixes people want to see 
in 3.9.1, is this:

*"What does the community want to see in 3.9.1 if/when it exists?" *

If the question was, "what do you want to see in 3.9plus", then the 
answer would be "anything you like its your image", and that entirely 
misses the whole point.

I have put together a forum for discussion and developed some of the 
tools for discussing, planning, specifying, automatically generating, 
and testing a minor release. The content of that release remains 
entirely open for discussion. The password for the site is "viewpoints" 
so you can dive straight in.

I am not presenting the community with a release saying this is 3.9.1 
take it or rename it. Rather I am presenting the community with an 
extremely embryonic process ready to be applied. This process has been 
sitting there doing nothing for a few months, so lets use it!

May I reiterate the content is open for discussion, and I think that the 
process is also as visible as it can possibly be. You dont even have to 
wait for me to generate a build you can do it youself from the command line.

So then,  what if anything /would/ you like to see in an official squeak 
3.9.1?

best regards

Keith




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20070507/005e7805/attachment.htm