Sorry I responded the other thread before to read this.....

2009/12/11 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>
>> My point is this.
>> The update number is not only a commodity.
>> If we have ...
>>>
>>> Image: Squeak3.10.2 [latest update: #7179]
>>
>> Its unclear the point in the process the image is
>> But if we got
>>>
>>> Image: Squeak3.10.2 [latest update: #7234]
>
> I see. And I agree. But I'll have to repeat what I said earlier: We need a
> workable solution to the problem. If anyone has an idea what we can do
> please propose it.


Shouldn't be that each commit loaded can add 1 to the latest update number?

Or may be is so difficult to maintain this relationship (commit --
latest update number)?


>
>> When finish 3.10.2 ? What have us chained to such number?
>
> Nothing. Really just that we'd have to decide whether the next version is
> going to be called 3.11 or 4.1 (i.e., 4.0 MIT/SFC + trunk). From my
> perspective the "trunk" nomenclature relates to work in progress;


Yes, I agree with this definition that trunk is "work in progress".


> it can
> either be based on the last or the next version and does't make much
> difference.
>
> If people feel we should move forward we can do this at any time. So shall
> we just call the current trunk 3.11 alpha?

Sound ok to me.

> (and if we get to 4.0, i.e.,
> complete the SFC process, we can simply abandon 3.11 and instead go straight
> to 4.1)
>
> Does that sound like a plan?
>


Yes, 4.0/4.1 should include SFC process completed.

Cheers.
Germán.