Re: re: 3.5 release timing

Ned Konz wrote:
> 
> On Friday 16 January 1970 03:50 am, Doug Way wrote:
> > > Are we going to ignore those other changes that were done for the
> > > Squeakland plugin and were posted here? Presumably they've been
> > > tested already and are appropriate.
> >
> > Hrm.  Well, my default answer would be:  We should not include them
> > in 3.5.  We should try to stick to the plan of only including the
> > high-severity bugfixes (as judged by the community) in this
> > extra-short release cycle.
> 
> Never mind. They're already in the updates as CS 5122SqlandFixes-mir

Ah, oops.  Well, that makes the decision a bit easier. ;-)

(I briefly browsed changes on the first couple of these changesets, and there
are some differences with what's in 3.4, but most of the rest are incorporated
as-is.  The differences must have been some further refinements for the
regular image versus the croquet image.)

- Doug Way
From [email protected] Tue Mar 11 19:03:52 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 19245 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 19:03:52 -0000
Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.21)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 19:03:52 -0000
Received: from [80.178.101.71] ([80.178.101.71]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec  6 2002))
 with SMTPA id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected]; Tue,
 11 Mar 2003 21:03:51 +0200 (IST)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:31:21 +0300
From: Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation] Decision time: Are SCG the steward of the
 kernel as proposed?
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.5108
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:03:52 -0000

I don't know if votes are that important (in the absence of any dissent,
at least), but yes anyway.

Daniel

[email protected] wrote:
> Hi fellow Guides!
> 
> When I just wrote the "monthly status report" I realized that we haven't
> really decided about "giving" SCG the Stewardship of the kernel. Of
> course, we guides are by no means "dictators" but we do have a
> responsibility to move discussions into decisions and after reading
> through this thread (the post from Alexandre Bergel felt like the
> "official request" from SCG) it looks to me that everyone is in favour
> of this arrangement.
> 
> So someone needs to "hit the club in the desk", or whatever you call it.
> 
> We talked a bit about what being a Steward means and we more or less
> came to the conclusion that we don't want to set any rules at this
> point. It is better to move ahead and learn. The only "guideline" that
> Andreas mentioned would be that as a Steward you simply need to be "more
> careful" when evolving the package - you obviously have much more
> dependents maintaining something in the kernel.
> 
> What we all wanted was some form of charter from SCG what they plan etc
> but I think we have a pretty good picture already and it probably will
> not affect the decision here - which is more a question of trust in
> their capability and motives. :-)
> 
> So, just to move forward one step:
> 
> Can we Guides agree to give SCG this Stewardship? I vote yes.
> 
> Let us all (us Guides that is) reply to this post so that we get a full
> count (6) and then we can make it "official", unless of course someone
> is against or still have things to discuss in which case we will just
> have to discuss further.
> 
> regards, Göran
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Tue Mar 11 19:18:40 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 19427 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 19:18:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO plato.hosting-dns.net) (64.247.50.2)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 19:18:40 -0000
Received: from 12-234-228-203.client.attbi.com ([12.234.228.203]
	helo=netjam.org)
	by plato.hosting-dns.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128)
	(Exim 3.36 #1)	id 18spGh-0000MJ-00; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:18:31 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:18:28 -0800
From: Craig Latta <[email protected]>
Organization: the NetJam project
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony}  (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [email protected]
References: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
	abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - plato.hosting-dns.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.squeakfoundation.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [0 0]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - netjam.org
cc: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
Subject: [Squeakfoundation]
 re: Decision time: Are SCG the steward of the kernel as proposed?
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:18:40 -0000


Hi Göran--

> ...someone needs to "hit the club in the desk", or whatever you call
> it.

	Heh; that would be "bang the gavel". :)

	I abstain.


-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
[email protected]
www.netjam.org/resume
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
From [email protected] Wed Mar 12 05:48:46 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 20120 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2003 05:48:45 -0000
Received: from mailhost1-sfldmi.sfldmi.ameritech.net (HELO
	mailhost.det2.ameritech.net) (206.141.193.105)
	by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 05:48:45 -0000
Received: from riskmetrics.com ([66.72.186.201])
	by mailhost.det2.ameritech.net
	(InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP
	<20030312054839.FVRA8853.mailhost.det2.ameritech.net@riskmetrics.com>
	for <[email protected]>;
	Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:48:39 -0500
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:48:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]3.5 release timing (was Re: Outstanding
	3.4bugs?)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
From: Doug Way <[email protected]>
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <005b01c2e6d2$77b311a0$8ef7fea9@atlantis>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551)
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:48:46 -0000


On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 01:58 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:

>> Arguments against a 1-month bugfix release are basically that
>> while we do have two much-discussed "serious" bugs in 3.4
>> (the project-saving bug & the class compilation bug), the
>> former still doesn't have a reliable fix yet,
>
> Oh, but it does. Simply revert to the original version of that method. 
> The
> bug is introduced by attempting to be overly smart (as I thought I had
> pointed out in two prior posts on this issue). Just revert it and 
> everything
> is fine.

So, mmm... which method is it that needs to be reverted?  I saw your 
previous post discussing the problems with Nishihara's fix, but didn't 
see a specific method referenced. (his fix involved several methods)

- Doug Way