[squeak-dev] Re: WTF, I'll see you .1.1 and raise you .8.9 ;-)
peace_the_dreamer at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 19 00:58:12 UTC 2010
--- On Sat, 4/17/10, Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn at stonehenge.com> wrote:
> From: Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn at stonehenge.com>
> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] WTF, I'll see you .1.1 and raise you .8.9 ;-)
> To: "Jerome Peace" <peace_the_dreamer at yahoo.com>
> Cc: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Date: Saturday, April 17, 2010, 8:10 PM
> >>>>> "Jerome" ==
> Jerome Peace <peace_the_dreamer at yahoo.com>
> Jerome> The new release raises the bar and breaks
> compatibility with
> Jerome> what came before. Closure compiler stuff.
> Jerome> changes. 2000-3000 incremental changes.
> Jerome> So a good designation would be 5.0 IMHO. Then
> you've really
> Jerome> warned folk to hold onto there seatbelts.
> No, that's also been true between 3.8 and 3.9, and 3.9 and
It would be good to see a more rational way of tracking progress. I think I would be more informed if we adopted a chronologial versioning scheme.
Ubuntu comes out in April and October their versions are in the form of yy.m . Very easy to follow. For us moreso since we have variable times between updates.
> 4.1 isn't *that* big of a change from 4.0. Nearly
> everything that runs
> in 4.0 runs in 4.1.
> The biggest reason for a major number change is a change in
> the .sources
> file. And why it wasn't done between 3.8 and 3.9 is
> historical. Let's
> not have that happen again. :)
Hmm. It would be good if new sources meant a new first digit. It would have been good for 3.9 to be labeled 4.0 especially because of the adoption of MC for image maintenence.
Anyway, done is done. Names are not the most important thing about progress.
More information about the Squeak-dev