Someone beat me to it:)

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Casey Ransberger
<ron.spengler at gmail.com> wrote:
> All right, y'all win with yer sensibility:) I'll deal with it when I get home.
>
> On Tuesday, March 16, 2010, Josh Gargus <josh at schwa.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Göran Krampe wrote:
>>
>>> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Janko" == Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si> writes:
>>>> Janko> Another issue, http://ftp.squeak.org/4.0/KNOWNISSUES is still refering
>>>> Janko> to 3.10.2. It should be reset to 'There are not known issues' or
>>>> Janko> something, IMHO
>>>> Well, there are plenty of known issues, exactly equal to what 3.10.2 had.
>>>
>>> Yeah! Please write something saying there are TONS of issues and MOST of them are already fixed in trunk and will be released as part of 4.1. And yet again explain that this is a "legal release".
>>
>>
>> Agreed.  This should be emphasized until we're confident that nobody new to Squeak (or returning from a hiatus) can be unaware of it.
>>
>> Also, we should start a discussion about how to wrap up 4.1 ASAP.  I think Bert described it well in another thread:
>>         - decide which bugs need to be fixed for 4.1
>>         - declare a feature-freeze
>>         - iterate between fixing the bugs and producing release-candidates
>>         - push the release out so that trunk can again be open to new development
>>
>> If we could do this within, say, a month, then we could push out announcements to Slashdot, etc. for 4.0 and 4.1 at the same time... this would make a bigger splash than two separate announcements.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Josh
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps in retrospect a version number like "3.99" would have been nice, but hey too late now. :)
>>>
>>> regards, Göran
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Casey Ransberger
>



-- 
Casey Ransberger