re: releasing SqueakMap, going forward

Craig Latta <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.foundation
Organization the NetJam project
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi Doug--

	FWIW...

> 3.2.1 has already been created (as a fork in the update stream, it
> doesn't appear to be on the ftp site).  And 3.4alpha already has all
> of the 3.3alpha changes retrofitted into its update stream, plus a
> few other small changes.  So to make 3.4 consist of only 3.2final
> plus SqueakMap, we'd have to dump almost all of the stuff currently
> in the 3.4alpha update stream.  This would cause confusion for people
> currently using 3.4alpha, and it may also cause problems for some
> packages on SqueakMap which are listed as 3.4alpha-compatible and
> which may depend on some of the updates in 3.4alpha.

	I don't buy that argument, given the nature of "alpha" ("features
definitely missing, and possible bugs"). I think people who are willing
to use alpha releases should be prepared for stuff like this.
(http://netjam.org/smalltalk/versions.html)

> (I could go either way as to whether your suggestion or the current
> situation is the better way to handle it.  On one hand, Squeak does
> not normally update its minor version number (e.g. 3.2 to 3.4) based
> on such a small addition code-wise (SqueakMap)...

	I don't think SqueakMap is "a small addition". But regardless, I don't
think the creation of a new minor version should require any particular
new-feature-set magnitude. It's far more important to simply make clear
that the feature set has changed (and I don't see any great disadvantage
to declaring a version dead, especially if it has yet to reach the final
release stage). And I don't think tertiary versions ever carry their
cognitive weight.

> If we don't like tertiary version numbers for Squeak releases, maybe
> we could agree to try to avoid them in the future.

	That has my vote. :)

> John also suggested that we could have just updated 3.2 with SqueakMap
> and left the version number at 3.2, but I tend to agree with Craig
> that that would not have been a good idea, because Squeak 3.2 had
> already been released as "final" and was available on the download
> page at squeak.org for a couple of months.  If we had done this,
> there would have been confusion as to which version was the real
> 3.2final.  (For example, I think Stephane Ducasse might have used
> the original 3.2final to put on CD's for his book.)

	Very well put. :)


	thanks,

-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
[email protected]
www.netjam.org/resume
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
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.