[ANN] 7061 = Squeak 3.9 final

[stephane ducasse-4]

- includes cs fix and required traits fixes

- is out and I would consider it as final.


Stef

[Frank Urbach]

Hi Stef,

congrats for releasing final 3.9. For marcus,you and many others it was a long and hard way to go.
Thanks for your huge amount of work.


Cheers,
  Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ANN] 7061 = Squeak 3.9 final (22-Sep-2006 15:02)
From:    stephane ducasse <[hidden email]>
To:      [hidden email]

> - includes cs fix and required traits fixes
>
> - is out and I would consider it as final.
>
>
> Stef
>

[stephane ducasse-4]

tx
our goal is to make sure you can invent the future.
So consider to do it :)

Or help to improve anybody at its own level can help :)

On 22 sept. 06, at 15:51, Frank Urbach wrote:

> Hi Stef,
>
> congrats for releasing final 3.9. For marcus,you and many others it  
> was a long and hard way to go.
> Thanks for your huge amount of work.
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Frank
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [ANN] 7061 = Squeak 3.9 final (22-Sep-2006 15:02)
> From:    stephane ducasse <[hidden email]>
> To:      [hidden email]
>
>> - includes cs fix and required traits fixes
>>
>> - is out and I would consider it as final.
>>
>>
>> Stef
>>
>
>
>

[Pavel Krivanek]

On 9/22/06, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> - includes cs fix and required traits fixes
>
> - is out and I would consider it as final.

Great!

We should start to setup goals for the next 3.10 release. What is your vision?

Btw, it seems that I have solved my problems with the Morphic
initialization in the RestOfSqueak package. I will publish it today.

-- Pavel

[Andrew Tween]

Hi Stef,

> - is out and I would consider it as final.

This is excellent news.
Many thanks to yourself, Marcus, and all involved.
Cheers,
Andy

[tim Rowledge]

On 22-Sep-06, at 6:02 AM, stephane ducasse wrote:

> - includes cs fix and required traits fixes
>
> - is out and I would consider it as final.
Sounds promising. Might I suggest allowing a week for possible  
problems before blessing it? There are few thigs quite as  
embarrassing as declaring a final version and finding out you forgot  
something crucial. DAMHIKT, as they say in the woodworking world.


tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Fractured Idiom:- PORTE-KOCHERE - Sacramental wine

[Brad Fuller]

tim Rowledge wrote:

>
> On 22-Sep-06, at 6:02 AM, stephane ducasse wrote:
>
>> - includes cs fix and required traits fixes
>>
>> - is out and I would consider it as final.
> Sounds promising. Might I suggest allowing a week for possible
> problems before blessing it? There are few thigs quite as embarrassing
> as declaring a final version and finding out you forgot something
> crucial. DAMHIKT, as they say in the woodworking world.

Wouldn't the VM Crash, that I and others reported, be a reason not to
release until fixed? Mantis issue# 0005056

brad

[stephane ducasse-4]

Sure but if we do not say that it is final then not enough people  
look at it.
So at some points we should stop.

A possibility is to declare this version final and release 3.9.1 in a  
month.
Or we can wait a week and declare it final.

>
> On 22-Sep-06, at 6:02 AM, stephane ducasse wrote:
>
>> - includes cs fix and required traits fixes
>>
>> - is out and I would consider it as final.
> Sounds promising. Might I suggest allowing a week for possible  
> problems before blessing it? There are few thigs quite as  
> embarrassing as declaring a final version and finding out you  
> forgot something crucial. DAMHIKT, as they say in the woodworking  
> world.
>
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Fractured Idiom:- PORTE-KOCHERE - Sacramental wine
>
>
>

[stephane ducasse-4]

On 22 sept. 06, at 18:54, Pavel Krivanek wrote:

> On 9/22/06, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> - includes cs fix and required traits fixes
>>
>> - is out and I would consider it as final.
>
> Great!
>
> We should start to setup goals for the next 3.10 release. What is  
> your vision?

;)
I will try to elaborate more after I sent a postmortem analysis of  
this release.
But in a nutshell
process
        - MC2
        - SystemEditor
        - more tests

Actions
        - Removing Etoy
        - fixing your override problems
        - Cleaning a lot of stuff
        - trying to use your mini image
        - Making sure that Sophie items can be loaded
        - Making sure that we can load tweak
        - new compiler per default ?

But I cannot do that alone

> Btw, it seems that I have solved my problems with the Morphic
> initialization in the RestOfSqueak package. I will publish it today.
>
> -- Pavel
>

[Schwab,Wilhelm K]

Stef,

===============
Sure but if we do not say that it is final then not enough people
look at it.
So at some points we should stop.

A possibility is to declare this version final and release 3.9.1 in a
month.
Or we can wait a week and declare it final.
===============

Either in place of or usually one step beyond gamma, many projects use a
release candidate label, which sends the correct message.  Most of them
seem to reach RC2 or 3 before releasing.

Bill



Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254

Email: [hidden email]
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

[Bryce Kampjes]

stephane ducasse writes:
 > Sure but if we do not say that it is final then not enough people  
 > look at it.
 > So at some points we should stop.
 >
 > A possibility is to declare this version final and release 3.9.1 in a  
 > month.
 > Or we can wait a week and declare it final.

I'd argue for waiting a week then declaring it final.

You've got a release candidate (or gamma). Release unless there's
a critical bug. So no more fixes unless someone finds a bug that's
worth waiting a few more weeks.

i.e. relax, and ask people to test.

Bryce

[tim Rowledge]

On 23-Sep-06, at 9:37 AM, Bryce Kampjes wrote:

> stephane ducasse writes:
>> Sure but if we do not say that it is final then not enough people
>> look at it.
>> So at some points we should stop.
>>
>> A possibility is to declare this version final and release 3.9.1 in a
>> month.
>> Or we can wait a week and declare it final.
>
> I'd argue for waiting a week then declaring it final.
>
> You've got a release candidate (or gamma). Release unless there's
> a critical bug. So no more fixes unless someone finds a bug that's
> worth waiting a few more weeks.
>
> i.e. relax, and ask people to test.

Exactly; think of this as RC1, watch the reports and if all seems  
reasonable after a week, relabel it.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Resistance is useless!  (If << 1 ohm)

[stephane ducasse-4]

Ok for RC1 :)

stef

[Serge Stinckwich-4]

Thanks for the great work, Stéphane, Markus and all the others !

I think now we have to setup a "3.9 release team" in order to take care
of the stable 3.9 branch (3.9.1, 3.9.2, ...). Maybe the same team could
make the job. Only bug fixing, documentation, and maybe tests should be
added in the stable branch, no more new features. The new features
should be only in the new 3.10 branch.

--                                                         oooo
Dr. Serge Stinckwich                                     OOOOOOOO
Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD               OOESUGOO
http://purl.org/net/SergeStinckwich                       oooooo
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]   \  /
                                                             ##

[Michael Roberts-2]

3.9 is looking great!

I was wondering though about the default colours of the SqueakMap  
browser.




Does anyone get the same effect as me?  I don't think the  
transparency is working properly and the scroll bar arrows don't  
display.  When I go to adjust the transparency it repairs itself but  
at 100% opaqueness.

Any thoughts?  It might be an idea to repair the colour in the image  
if everyone gets this.

Cheers,

Mike

[stephane ducasse-4]

yeap this is a problem but not a show stopper for me.
:)

So if someone fix it we may include in RC2.

Stef

On 24 sept. 06, at 20:00, Michael Roberts wrote:

> 3.9 is looking great!
>
> I was wondering though about the default colours of the SqueakMap  
> browser.
>
> <squeak-map1.png>
>
> Does anyone get the same effect as me?  I don't think the  
> transparency is working properly and the scroll bar arrows don't  
> display.  When I go to adjust the transparency it repairs itself  
> but at 100% opaqueness.
>
> Any thoughts?  It might be an idea to repair the colour in the  
> image if everyone gets this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

[Bakki Kudva]

I thought that the 3.8 image had a great look and feel. I am curious
as to why it was determined that it needed a look enhancement. I think
somebody's grandfather had once said, "If it aint' broken don't fix
it" :)

-bakki

PS: In addition to the issue Michael mentions some of the other
behavioural problems are:
1. Windows can only be resized by dragging corners. It is very
convenient to be able to do it also by dragging the borders.
2. Resizing Monticello browser stretches the buttons at top to ugly
proportions. (layout problem)


On 9/24/06, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> yeap this is a problem but not a show stopper for me.
> :)
>
> So if someone fix it we may include in RC2.
>
> Stef

[Ramon Leon-4]

> I thought that the 3.8 image had a great look and feel. I am curious
> as to why it was determined that it needed a look enhancement. I think
> somebody's grandfather had once said, "If it aint' broken don't fix
> it" :)
>
> -bakki

It was broke, it was ugly as hell and looked like a toy (be design,
being for kids).  It needed a more professional look, to be used by more
professionals.  The latest look enhancements also added a nicety of
double clicking the title bar to minimize and maximize, like other
windowing systems.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com

[Vaidotas Didžbalis]

> I thought that the 3.8 image had a great look and feel.
IMO, 3.9 looks not better than 3.8. I liked "Out of the box" and "Bright squeak" in 3.6 . They looked more consistent for me. Perhaps aesthetics is subjective thing. But squeak 3.9 can not change themes (http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-February/100944.html).

Marcus noted about reasons for that:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-February/100953.html


Vaidotas Didžbalis,

[Hiren Thacker]

"But Squeak is only a toy." - "Yes, thanks to God!" - anonymous vs. squeaker

I m very happy coz i m still a kid.

It wasn't broken technically anyway.

On 9/25/06, Ramon Leon < [hidden email]> wrote:

> > I thought that the 3.8 image had a great look and feel. I am curious
> > as to why it was determined that it needed a look enhancement. I think
> > somebody's grandfather had once said, "If it aint' broken don't fix
> > it" :)
> >
> > -bakki
>
> It was broke, it was ugly as hell and looked like a toy (be design,
> being for kids).  It needed a more professional look, to be used by more
> professionals.  The latest look enhancements also added a nicety of
> double clicking the title bar to minimize and maximize, like other
> windowing systems.
>
> Ramon Leon
> http://onsmalltalk.com
>
>
>

--
Hiren J.Thacker