Re: 3.5 release timing (was Re: Outstanding 3.4 bugs?)

Doug,
You're the Harvest Master, your word is law ;-)

I'll go with whatever you think is best (and I thought of sending this
before you agreed with me, honest! :-). I propose you announce a capsule
decision on squeak-dev when you think the month should start. 

I agree with everything you said. About Accufonts, I think it depends on
what Cees/Andrew can tell us about any discussions with Apple. It might
be worth doing it regardless just to make sure we don't in any way
delay/obstruct any advancement of the license front.

I would really love to know that Andrew and Cees are talking, and we're
getting Andrew's best (non-official) advice about how to go about this.

Daniel

Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 09:06 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> > [about one quick fixes release]
> >
> > Doug said:
> >> That does make some sense.  A "very good" release might be a good 
> >> start
> >> before getting down to splitting up the image and other work, as
> >> opposed to a more average release.  A reference release of sorts.  And
> >> good PR, I suppose.
> >>
> >> It would delay the "getting down to splitting up the image" by at 
> >> least
> >> a month, though.
> > People are posting "Remove <whatever>" packages, though slowly. I think
> > I can help people to speed up and focus this process independent of the
> > release schedule, as long as the fixes made do not break refactorings 
> > by
> > including too many things. So as long as the fixes release is focused 
> > on
> > the important stuff, I see no conflict.
> >
> > When we start 3.6, we'll have a few more removals ready to go.
> 
> Yes, that's true... that work could continue during a short 3.5 bugfix 
> release.
> 
> >> And I'm not sure it's *really* that important.  So
> >> I'm still on the fence, awaiting a few more opinions.
> > Yup, I'd like to hear more too, but keeping in mind that -
> >
> >> But we do need to decide on the 3.5 release timing very soon...
> >
> > Daniel
> 
> Well, I haven't seen any more opinions coming in against the idea of a 
> short bugfix release for 3.5 (although not many in favor have come in 
> either, aside from a few on squeak-dev).
> 
> After thinking about it for awhile, I'm inclined to go along with the 
> idea of a short 3.5 bugfix release.  We'd need to set the release date 
> for about 1 month from now, or perhaps 1 month from when we begin 
> harvesting fixes (which from the looks of it should be very soon).  2 
> weeks alpha, 1 week beta, 1 week gamma, or something like that.
> 
> I'm assuming that future releases (3.6 and beyond) will have a longer, 
> normal release cycle, which would allow enough time for enhancements, 
> refactorings, and package removals, in addition to bugfixes.  Somewhere 
> between 3 and 6 months per release is what has been tossed around, but 
> we don't have to decide that just yet.
> 
> If we do go ahead with this short plan for 3.5, we will need to be 
> strict about letting in only bugfixes, and even then trying to avoid 
> fixes which are overly invasive or widespread.  As an example, the 
> Morphic Cleanup Project stuff seems to be mostly refactorings as 
> opposed to bugfixes.  Very useful refactorings, of course. :-)  But as 
> such, I would think most of that sort of stuff would wait until 
> 3.6alpha to be included.  (Which isn't really *that* far away anyway, 
> and an organized project like MCP would probably warrant consideration 
> for inclusion right at the beginning of 3.6alpha.)
> 
> IMHO, possibly the only non-bugfix item worth considering for 3.5 would 
> be removing the Apple fonts (assuming we decided to go with the simple 
> Accufont solution at first since that's pretty well tested), if we were 
> worried about delaying progress with Apple on the licensing issues.  
> But even that might be a stretch.
> 
> Anyway, my two cents.
> 
> - Doug Way
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Sat Mar 08 10:04:48 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 21742 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2003 10:04:48 -0000
Received: from 1.2.0.10.in-addr.arpa (HELO cdegroot.com) (10.0.2.1)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 8 Mar 2003 10:04:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 23810 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2003 10:04:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 8 Mar 2003 10:04:46 -0000
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]3.4 press release
From: Cees de Groot <[email protected]>
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-3Zae4uayfbJMGl59/Shl"
Organization: 
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 
Date: 08 Mar 2003 11:04:46 +0100
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: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:04:48 -0000


--=-3Zae4uayfbJMGl59/Shl
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 21:00, John M McIntosh wrote:
> Mmm might I suggest some comments about how old/mature a lot of the =20
> code base is and that
> many many folks from around the world have over the last 20+  years =20
> reviewed fixed, optimized etc the code base.
>=20
Good suggestion. That leaves three additions to the blurb:
- OS independence
- The fact that the OO+GUI pioneers are on board
- The fact that this is a quarter century of work.
And all without making the blurb too long :-). Suggestions still
welcome.=20

--=-3Zae4uayfbJMGl59/Shl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+acA98wOTf+CYnosRAghPAJ48KaVCP+EPEZlJbiquY1J+raGs0ACeI7tf
FRGibghC9mTkJNvkpcjoCEo=
=Us5Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-3Zae4uayfbJMGl59/Shl--