I don't see why those VM fixes would be necessary if the few known improvement issues with the 3.10.2 image are not.

I think both should be done myself but others here are saying not.
So it seems to me, neither or both.

Ken G. Brown

At 9:20 PM -0800 3/13/10, John M McIntosh apparently wrote:
>Ok, tomorrow I'll look at pushing a 4.2.3 Vm that contains the lurking bitblt fixes.
>However someone needs to confirm then they exist in all the VM that become the basis for 4.0
>
>
>On 2010-03-13, at 7:15 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, parts of the image are indeed under different
>> copyrights. As hard as it is to grok, copyright and license, it would
>> seem, are separate issues. I Am Not A Lawyer. If the SFC lawyers come
>> back asking us to revise this part, I'll do it.
>>
>> I used the Mac VM that John recommended. Not sure about the BitBlt
>> tests. Isn't that a known issue? I thought I saw a thread about that.
>> Seems like something that should be fixable after 4.0. 4.0 roughly
>> equals 3.10.2...
>
>--
>===========================================================================
>John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
>Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
>===========================================================================