On 8/13/15, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Ben Coman <btc at openinworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:15 AM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hi All,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Fabio's kindly done most of the changes.  But some questions
>> >> remain
>> >> for
>> >> more general discussion.  See below.
>> >>
>> >> Fabio,  thanks so much for doing this, and so quickly!
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Eliot Miranda
>> >> <eliot.miranda at gmail.com
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi All,
>> >>>
>> >>>     who will update http://squeak.org/downloads/ to include the 5.0
>> >>> release?
>> >>>
>> >>> a) I suggest that the 5.0 all-in-one have a line in the left-hand
>> >>> table
>> >>> that includes the 4.6 release and that it precede the 4.6 release in
>> the
>> >>> list.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Done.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> b) the Trunk link points to TrunkImage.zip which contains a non-Spur
>> >>> image.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> So this is the biggie.  What should we do?
>> >>
>> >> - add a Trunk 5.0 build with a different link?  (Noooooo)
>> >>
>> >> - change  http://build.squeak.org/job/SqueakTrunk to build what it
>> >> says
>> >> (Yessss please, who can do this?)
>> >>
>> >> - add a Squeak 4.6 build job?  Is that even worth it any more
>> considering
>> >> 4.6 is released and stable?  If it is then what should it build?
>> >> David?
>> >
>> > I think that if we have a job called "SqueakTrunk" then it should be
>> > building the actual current trunk image, which is a 5.0 Spur image.
>> >
>> > Ideally I would suggest renaming the current "SqueakTrunk" job to
>> > something like "SqueakTrunk_Old".
>>
>>
>> "Old" things sometimes get mistreated (e.g. accidental deletion,
>> confused with other "old" things over years.)
>> How about something topical like SqueakTrunk_V3Legacy?
>> cheers -ben
>>
>
> +1
>
> Or SqueakTrunkV46?

+1

To call is 'legacy' just a few weeks after the release of Squeak 4.6
sound premature ....

>
>
>>
>>
>> > Leave it disabled until it gets fixed,
>> > and if it does not get fixed in a reasonable time (say a month or two)
>> > then delete it. Meanwhile get new new job up and running for the real
>> > SqueakTrunk builds.
>> >
>> > I do not know how that Jenkins job is maintained (it's done in a Ruby
>> make
>> > system, which is over my head), so treat this just as an opinion.
>> >
>> > Dave
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> _,,,^..^,,,_
> best, Eliot
>