On 17 December 2012 12:12, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> On 2012-12-16, at 22:16, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://ftp.squeak.org/4.4/Squeak4.4-12303.zip
>>
>> I suggest we use a consistent naming convention that conveys the
>> general ("4.4") and specific ("-12303") version information.  After a
>> week has gone by for the community to download and verify it, there is
>> no need to deploy yet another (renamed) image, so the "candidate" is
>> truly a candidate for release -- the one that was tested.  Then all we
>> have to do is [ANN]ounce.

I would in general be happy with this convention, but right now it's a
lie: this image is 12303 + my ReleaseBuilder and Morphic hacks, which
are in the Inbox (deliberately so) and NOT in trunk.

If people are OK with what they see (other than the 500 at 400 glitch
Stef caught), I can move these into trunk, and we can have a 12303+n
version.

frank

>> That it is in the "4.4" release directory rather than the "4.4alpha"
>> directory, anyone will know this is THE candidate for release.
>
> Nobody can know this from the URL. It looks like an actual release, because *nothing* indicates that this is not a stable version.
>
>>  In the
>> past we have tagged alpha images as, e.g., "Squeak4.2alpha-10160.zip"
>> -- which could still do for alpha images if we want to be sure the
>> names themselves carry a "quality disclaimer" tag.
>
> I'd prefer this, yes.  Although we're way past alpha. This is a release candidate, after all:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>