[squeak-dev] MC broken / how to update in 3.11 alpha?
keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Jan 16 05:22:13 UTC 2009
Andreas Raab wrote:
> Hi -
> I was just doing some stuff in 3.10 when I decided to try the 3.11
> alpha. First of all, can we *please* rename the image to 3.11 instead
> of 3.10.2 "bc"? The reason being that 1) I've never seen the
> designation "build candidate" for any software project, and 2) it gets
> extremely confusing when you have to distinguish "3.10.2" (which works
> fine) from "3.10.2 bc" (which breaks). Much simpler to call 3.11 alpha
> what it is: 3.11 alpha.
But it isn't 3.11 alpha. it has no changes to the base image, except
what are required to support loading LPF and make a 3.10 base image
usable for building production images using Sake/Packages. It is
designated 'beta' because subject to last minute snags (ahem!) it should
be release quality. I used to call it 3.10.2LPF, We could call it
build-base, or anything you like except 3.11alpha.
The difference with this process and previous releases, is that this
release is planned, there is a design, the tasks are in place, they just
need fleshing out. (at least thats the theory), so when these tasks are
ready and applied for the first time, that is when we call things alpha.
In the alpha you will see, classes moved to different places to tidy
things up, some stuff removed, some stuff renamed, deprecated methods
removed etc. I have already written that bit.
The "process" involves defining sets of tasks to create deliverables in
parallel. The application of fixes will be what makes things potentially
unstable so I dont want to over do it with too many so hopefully we wont
stay in alpha too long.
3.10.2bc -> 3.11tc -> 3.11rc -> 3.11-test -> 3.11-light -> 3.11-fun
(build0 - nofixes)
-> 3.11tc -> 3.11rc -> 3.11-test -> 3.11-light ->
3.11-fun (build1 - 50 fixes) etc.
I am working on tasks to load fixes,
http://bugs.squeak.org/installer_export.php?project=Squeak only went
live yesterday. I also started harvesting edgars SqueakLightII script to
make a few more things unloadable to generate a 3.11-light etc.
> Anyway, enough of that. What I noticed in 3.11 alpha
It isnt 3.11 alpha, its a package of the tools I have been using to
produce production images for almost a year, with the addition of
> (no I won't call it 3.10.2 bc ;-) is that apparently Monticello got
> badly broken.
I didnt have this problem, I built an image on it so I have no idea what
is going on.
More information about the Squeak-dev