[squeak-dev] 3.11 artifacts observations and a little bit of curiosity.

***
>Keith Hodges keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk 
>Thu Dec 18 22:07:26 UTC 2008 
>
>
>
>Chris Cunningham wrote:
>> So, why not call it 3.11bc or 3.11.0bc?  You do definitely have the
>> authority to use that name.
>>  
>> -Chris
>Because it is an image derived from 3.10 for building stuff that works
>in 3.10. The packages definitions/universe etc that you would expect to
>work in this image are the 3.10 ones, not the 3.11 ones.

Um. Are you sure that's the right way to think about it?
3.11 the beginning does not have to resemble 3.11 the final product.

Almost all previous releases started where their predecessors left off.
The first 3.9 alpha was exactly 3.8 final with just the version number changed.
The final 3.9 release was something quite different than its beginning.

I wondered the same thing as Chris. Why not call what you are doing both
3.11 alpha (the beginning) and when permission comes 3.10.3
 (the maintenence collection of fixes from the 3.11 change stream?

Or in your case the installer scripts including the 3.11 fixes
 that are useful for maintaining 3.10.x

AFAICT that is what versioning number distinctions are all about.

Also if you don't have permission to name something a 3.10.3
 then we should get "someone in authority" into the loop
Either we get permission or we get another release team
 that can have permission to fix the bugs 3.10.2 left broken.

In practice, I don't really care about the numbering.
I care about bug reduction and I care about repairs getting in to a distributable image.
I care that names should not conflict.
3.10.2 should be and only be associated with the official squeak release. 
An official distribution will gain a reputation. 
That reputation should not be diluted by any similarly sounding
 but not similarly acting alternative.

Thank you for considering these concerns.

Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace