On 16/01/13 11:12 AM, Frank Shearar wrote:
>
> Fine, you're right, SqueakV44.sources being a copy of
> SqueakV41.sources is a bit lame. If you like, the error is that we
> didn't condense sources, and we should for every release.

It's not clear that any error was made. The "plan" apparently was to 
condense sources "non-destructively". But, condense sources is 
destructive, at the moment. So, without doing the work to make it a 
non-destructive condense, then the only option was to do the same as 
before - which is to use SqueakV41.sources.

>
> Well. I would be fine with either a condense on a major release or a
> minor release, if it was ALWAYS true. Consistency is the mother of
> automation. But that's not where we are.

SqueakV41.sources is an anomaly. That's where we're at. My original 
point was that introducing SqueakV44.sources as an "alias" name for 
SqueakV41.sources does not improve the current situation, IMHO.