On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:51:20PM +0200, Nicolai Hess wrote:
> 2015-09-11 11:06 GMT+02:00 Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>:
> 
> > On 11 September 2015 at 09:38, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess at web.de> wrote:
> > > anyone maintaining the bugtracker entries?
> > > I would like to close some issues (reported by me).
> >
> > Feel free to do so!
> >
> > > btw should I continue reporting bugs to the bugtracker, or should
> > > I use the ML only?
> >
> > Please do continue to report issues to the bugtracker.
> >
> 
> Ok, but maybe I will send the reports to the ML as well. The last time
> I reported some issues on the bugtracker for the upcoming releases,
> they didn't not get much attentions.

I think you are right to do that. The bug tracker is important for issues
that may not be easily resolved, or that may require the cooperation of
several people for resolution. FFI problems tend to be like this, so
documenting them on the bug tracker may be helpful both for you and for
other people who encounter these issues.

Reporting issues on the mailing lists is also good, especially if discussion
is needed.

So for issues such as FFI problems: Document this issue as well as you can
on the bug tracker, and take it to the mailing list for discussion. Exactly
as you have been doing.


> There were some issues reported for the 4.3 and 4.4 release and they are
> outdated now,
> as I am an "updater" now, I can close those myself, but two issues are
> reported
> for project "squeak website", can someone else close this issues please.
> 
> Some time after the 4.4 (or 4.5?) release, I asked several times on the ML
> for
> the release plan for the VM, because I had some serious problems with
> getting
> FFI to work with the included VM (it was quite old), but I got no responds.
> And as the prerelease for 4.6 was announced, I asked if it has a squeak vm
> release candidate  too,
> but again, I got no response.
> Is the Squeak release always only about the image?

As a general rule, yes. But in the case of Squeak 4.6/5.0, definitely no.

Usually, a Squeak image should run on a range of VMs, and conversely, a VM
is expected to be able to run a wide range of images.

The Squeak 4.6 and 5.0 releases are different. Here we are making significant
change to the actual object formats in the Squeak image, along with major
changes in the VMs that take advantage of the new format. This requires a
coordinated release of image and VM. You may expect additional changes of this
nature as Squeak moves toward 64-bit images and VMs, so for perhaps the next
year or so we should expect close coupling of released images with compatible
VMs. Maybe after that we will settle back into a cadence in which image releases
are relatively independent of VM versions.

Dave