Re: Re: releasing SqueakMap (was "One more update for 3.2.1?"... again...)

John M McIntosh <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.foundation
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Well I should wade in and point out a few things that I've noticed over  
the years.

a) Many users will use 3.xFINAL as the preferred deployment package  
because they feel 3.x+1Alpha is too experimental for them to risk using  
because they are not power-squeak users. In fact I still encounter  
people who are using 2.8 or 3.0 because until recently 3.2 was 3.2gama.  
Mm tonight I was going to download 3.4alpha to some ones desktop but he  
pointed out he didn't run alpha or beta software on his machine because  
it was too risky so I had to promise that 3.4ALPHA wasn't going to hose  
his machine (a true story).

I'd think one should finalize 3.2 and stuff SM into it mostly because  
that's a way for people to distribute content/apps/changesets/? in the  
3.2. environment. I say finalize, although it's final mostly because  
there's a few patchs etc from 3.3 (I think?) I'm sure one can of course  
say this SM is 3.2 or 3.4 or 3.2/3.4 compatible...

Ps zap any thoughts of 3.2.x (tertiary numbers).

On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 05:42  PM, Doug Way wrote:

>
> Craig Latta wrote:
>>
>> Hi Doug--
>>
>>> Also, I suppose if the goal is to move 3.4 toward a release
>>> relatively soon (in the next month or two?) then getting the SM
>>> bootstrap into the 3.2 series becomes less urgent.
>>
>>         Why can't we leave 3.2 alone and make 3.4 the venue of  
>> SqueakMap's
>> mainstream debut?
>>
>>         Will someone please summarize the rationale for revisiting a  
>> "final"
>> release here, and for getting into tertiary version numbers?
>
> ....

> Now that we're working toward 3.4, and we've decided that it should be  
> finalized relatively soon, I suppose there wasn't a great need to  
> split off 3.2.  Oh well. :-)  However, there were a lot of  
> 3.2-compatible packages already in place on SqueakMap, so it seemed  
> like SqueakMap should have some sort of debut in the 3.2 world.  (I  
> was thinking in my recent message that since we already split off  
> 3.2.1, we might as well add the SqueakMap bootstrap too, but that's  
> not super-important.)
>
>
--
======================================================================== 
===
John M. McIntosh <[email protected]> 1-800-477-2659
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
======================================================================== 
===
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.