[squeak-dev] 3.11 deliverable no.1

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:19:18 +0000
From: Keith Hodges <keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: [squeak-dev] 3.11 deliverable no.1
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
<squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <493F5F66.6060500@yahoo.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hello All,

The first result of the 3.11 effort is going to be an image that I have
called 3.10bc. Where bc stands for "Build Candidate".

The purpose of this image is to provide a base starting point for
everyone who would like to contribute to 3.11, and do image building
activities of any kind.

3.10bc is the first "fixed point", being essentially the stable 3.10
release, against which small projects can be carried out safely.

To if you were to test a bug fix, and I want to reproduce it, it will be
a case of taking 3.10bc and repeating your test.

3.10bc consists of, 3.10.2 + LevelPlayingField
(Monticello, PackageInfo, MonticelloConfigurations, Monticello-Files,
Installer-Launcher), and the latest of AtomicLoading, Universes,
SqueakMap, Sake/Packages, SUnit, and Tasks, together with some essential
fixes which support the above packages. Full details of the mantis bug
reports for those fixes are included in the image.

This "base" is generated and should be easily reproducible for any of
the images supported by LevelPlayingField. Some tools like SUnitGUI are
not backwardly compatible, BUT SUnit includes a non GUI TestReporter
which is.

Projects which can start based upon 3.10bc

A) Bug Harvesting

All the outstanding bugs on mantis can be assessed, in their respective
categories.

B) Image Tidying

C) Image wide adjustments renaming etc.

e.g.

_ to := revisited. == to = Transcript show -> self logCR:

D) Module Definition and Removal

Move classes into a category, make them into a monticello package, move
methods to become extension methods, and publish the package.

E) Validation of external packages, and getting more stuff to work

And many more I am sure.

3.10bc+fixes, from A above, will be a continuously moving target, for
those intending to build on top of 3.11, so instead we provide a 3.11bc
this will be 3.10bc + tidying, reorg and removals. But Not Bug Fixes.
This is an image that may be used as a second fixed point if preferred.

back to the day job for a few days for me I am afraid

Keith

[squeak-dev] [Ann] Installer now supports Mantis searching

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:06:47 +0000
From: Keith Hodges <keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: [squeak-dev] [Ann] Installer now supports Mantis searching
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
<squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <493F5C77.7090708@yahoo.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

This facility is based upon the output of the csv export from Mantis.

M := Installer mantis. "keep the instance to avoid the table being gc'ed"

M searchCategoryCollections explore.
M searchStatusConfirmed.

M := nil. "let it go."

regards Keith

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: What is Forking Squeak

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:53:52 +0200
From: "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: What is Forking Squeak
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Message-ID:
<4a5f5f320812091653j77f64d10o8e3398615034b6f0@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2008/12/10 Hilaire Fernandes <hilaire@ofset.org>:
> Where I found Squeak is dramatically failing is at the core level.
> The list you have been writing is from projects at the periphery of Squeak.
> All those project are forks of Squeak, and each fork is the symptom of a
> difficulty for cooperation at the core level. I don't know why, I just see
> as all of you the symptom.
>
> The result is diluted energy, duplication of effort, incompatibilities, all
> the badness you got from fork.
>
> Try to imagine each Python based projects as a Python fork, you will hardly
> saw that as proof of success. More like a proof of failure.
>
> I think most of the problem come from the legacy of Squeak. Was Squeak
> designed to be a plate forme to develop on top of it other software? I don't
> think so. More like a great toy but it hardly scales when you want to do
> serious things. Then of course the complete lack of leadership in the
> Squeak community does not help to aggregate...
>
> Frankly I am suprised Squeak is still alive, is it? But in fact it does not
> matter as there are many forks out there.
>
>

+1 :)

That's why i think 3.11 team does right job.
We don't need just a yet-another-prebuilt-image, because it again will
lead to another fork (for those who don't see it - look at 3.8-3.10
fate).
We need tools for building images and integrate fixes/new/custom stuff easily.

Also, i think we should focus on making easy to plug-in / easy to
plug-out code with a little restriction(s) on kernel.
While its easy to say, hard to do - people who tried to refactor a
code to remove some global from use know what i mean. :)
I dreaming, to have image where i can load a compiler into image as
separate package, same for morphic & other stuff.

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

[squeak-dev] Polymorph

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:39:55 -0000
From: "Gary Chambers" <gazzaguru2@btinternet.com>
Subject: [squeak-dev] Polymorph
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <860A3A169FAB4176869BD2B29E0939C7@GuruVista>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

Just to lets everyone know that Polymorph has been updated on SqueakSource.
(never had any joy with the announcements list...)
More fixes etc. The Watery2 theme is starting to look pretty cool now.

After a few weeks of feedback I'll update the dev Universe.

Wiki: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6005
SqueakSource: http://www.squeaksource.com/UIEnhancements/

In use with 3.9.
Not tested with 3.10, though should be ok.
A little further on than the current Pharo version.

Regards, Gary.

Re: [squeak-dev] Waiting for 3.11 artifacts.

Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:00:36 +0100
From: G?ran Krampe <goran@krampe.se>
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Waiting for 3.11 artifacts.
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
<squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <493E5DE4.10508@krampe.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Hi all!

First of all - great thread!! :) I could ask questions and comment on
hundreds of things but I am letting the current people hash it out for
now. One thing I would like someone to do though is to "distill" this
thread into at least a Swiki page on the Squeak Swiki! :)

But a bit of comments anwyay:

Keith Hodges wrote:
> Jerome Peace wrote:
>> I personally do not want to have to understand what is on the pbwiki or to navigate keith's new ways of doing things in order to play and test out a new squeak image.
>>
>> What unsettles me at the moment is that two very powerful programmers are taking 3.11 in some very new directions relative to what the community is used to.
>>
> The alternative was officially nothing. I piped up when the board were
> considering cancelling 3.11
>
> So anything is better than nothing, perhaps?

Indeed and I have repeatedly asked for a clarification on the 3.11
status and how "official" it is! Now I hope it is FULLY official and
that Matthew (?) is the release team leader.

>> While I have a great respect in Matthew's judgment and ability to explain what he is doing, I have found from experience that Keith's notions are more of a gamble.
>>
> So far, I am quite pleased to say that everything I have put my hand to
> has worked really well.
>
> But this comment indicates to me that you really dont "get it" yet.
>
> The whole deal with this 3.11 project is not about delivering an image,
> its about addressing a need, through putting a philosophy into practice
> across the board. The 3.11 goal is to showcase the tools that make that
> philosophy possible. While the tools are not ready there is no 3.11
> (fortunately the tools are getting there and there will be a 3.11)

Many of us who have been around for a while know that we have tried
numerous approaches over the years and we know that many of these have
failed due to various reasons. For example, the idea of "harvesting" and
having so called "harvesters" failed because it only led to a few people
burning out (in the very early years it "worked" because we had paid
people doing the harvesting).

So such a model is not viable IMHO. We need to move and try other routes
- and I for one applaud the current effort in 3.11 and will try to chip
in wherever I can.

> The need is definitely there, and the philosophy aiming to meet that
> need has been operating well for almost a year now. That's not a gamble
> at all, its already happening.
>
> Edgar has delivered image after image, but does that help anyone in the
> long run really. It doesn't help me. I have production code and I don't
> have time to spend a month moving it form one image to another manually,
> without any tools to help, broken MC, broken Universes etc. It doesnt
> help us move forward in the future to something like Morphic 3.0, or COG
> for which atomic loading is likely to be essential.
>
> Real World Example:
>
> As an example, Gjallar was working in 3.8, there is no technical
> compelling reason to move the huge code base over to 3.10. It doesn't
> offer any must have new features. The only reason for moving is to be
> able to keep up for the sake of it. So into this situation comes
> Installer, Gjallar migrates to use Installer for its build scripts
> (July2007). Once Installer is used, the build script can be run in 3.7,
> 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, Sophie, Croquet or Etoys. Installer proves the common
> ground that is essential to move forward, even though that move didn't
> take place for almost a year, the Gjallar team knew that they were no
> longer a fork, because they had the tools to make keeping up possible
> and straight forward.
>
> So did Gjallar move to 3.10 because of the 3.10 image features, or
> because Installer and LevelPlayingField helped make it a smooth
> transition? Gjallar is a fork no more. Which of 3.10/Installer is
> really contributing most to moving the community forward? I would say
> that Installer is doing a damn fine job for a little tool.

Yes, we made the move just recently of Gjallar over to 3.10 and adjusted
our Installer script to use LPF etc. It worked really well and we did it
mainly because we don't want to be left out on the improvements/fixes
pouring in. All in all Installer is a great tool making "image building"
quite easy. Combined with Sake/Packages (modulo having not used it yet)
I presume it gets even more powerful.

A trivial example from Gjallar: We include fixes available on Mantix
using Installer "oneliners". We don't need to wait for someone else to
harvest it, get it into the image etc etc.

[SNIP]
> The important thing is that all of the contributions to that 3.11 are
> also available to all other image users. So you don't have to wait for a
> 3.11 image to partake of the new wine.
>
> Its not really a gamble its a coherent strategy to implement what Goran
> had as a vision, multiple update streams, but in a different form.
> Different experts can contribute different tasks managed in Monticello.

Yes, we share the same understanding of where we are right now - the
Squeak world is already "forked" in several directions. We need to get
mechanisms in place to cope with that. I still hope to be able to move
DeltaStreams forward (time, time, time...) but the important thing is
that we are several who share the understanding of the core problem.

> Dont Panic

Hehe, I like it! :) Remember folks - we are all in this for fun! Matthew
and Keith (and several others of course) have made huge contributions
over the last year, and I am extremely grateful for that.

I hope to be able to pull my share mainly related to SM.

regards, G–ran

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Waiting for 3.11 artifacts.

Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:00:33 +0000
From: Keith Hodges <keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Waiting for 3.11 artifacts.
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
<squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <493E5DE1.4000909@yahoo.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Andreas,

Thanks for having a go!
> Obviously. We all have to make a living ;-) But in the meantime we
> should see if we can redistribute the work or adjust the goals to
> reflect the realities
volunteers?
> we're encountering. One of the reasons why I have proposed in the past
> to only include work that was completed previously is to avoid
> situations where some individual needs to make adjustments to their
> situation. From what you say I can only guess that there are parts of
> the 3.11 proposal that critically depend on you and that you won't
> have the time to work on for the foreseeable time. Would it make sense
> to adjust the plan towards that end?
>
>> Nevertheless the goals were stated in the paper that Matthew presented
>> to the board, and those goals have been worked upon and stuff is in the
>> process of coming online.
>
> By "the paper" I presume you mean
> http://installer.pbwiki.com/Squeak311Proposal ?
>
yes
>>> 2. What are the goals for 3.11? I have seen references to
>>> http://installer.pbwiki.com/311 - is this "the place" for it? (again
>>> yes/no/perhaps are all good answers, I just want to make sure we're
>>> using the same frame of reference)
>> "THE" place of reference is the 311-Proposal accessible from that page.
>
> I have found the following three pages:
> http://installer.pbwiki.com/311
> http://installer.pbwiki.com/Squeak311
> http://installer.pbwiki.com/Squeak311Proposal
> Is this it or are there other places that I'm missing?
Thats it.
>> Matthew might update things in the next week or two.
>>> 3. Where are we in the process towards these goals? Both from a
>>> high-level perspective as well as the nitty-gritty details of things
>>> that don't work but need to be addressed for a release.
>> Many of the parts are in place. We are waiting for Bob to bring them all
>> together, Bob was waiting for Rio to support ftp seamlessly.
> Could you be a little more precise about which parts are in place? The
> above three pages list lots of stuff and it is very difficult to
> understand how much progress has been made where, what dependencies
> remain and where (on a percentage or similar base) we are in the process.
>From - http://installer.pbwiki.com/311

1. Start with 3.10 LPF - [ works well ]
2. Sake and Tasks - [ loading is now in Packages item 5 ]
3. Do SetPreferences-Squeak3:10 [ is a roadmap task ] [background
color is set for image type tc/rc/u etc ]
4. Add 311-KernelExtensions - as version managed Sake/Task [ Being
broken down into mantis fixes ]
5. Packages [ working well - Matthew thinks we need a UI ]
6. Do Reorganize-Squeak3:10 [ in progress ]

[ Manual Fixes - we have 80 or so in the system, as you pointed out
Installer is struggling with .gz extension
but that is a trivial thing to fix ]

[ Plan to automate more of the fixing process - We have "Mantis" code
which reads Mantis periodically for Bob
Mantis will generate tasks for applying fixes according to status.
(1/2 day) ]

[ Mantis review - 1 week initially - then how long is a piece of string
- (850 unresolved issues to go) ]

7. Do Latest
1. MinorFixes-Squeak3:10 - as version managed SakeTask
2. MajorFixes-Squeak3:10

3. PackageUpgrades [ task present in road map - complete? ]

[ 8 Same as 7 only Unstable ]

8. Optionally Do LatestUnstable
1. MinorFixesUnstable-Squeak3:10
2. MajorFixesUnstable-Squeak3:10
3. PackageUpgradedUnstable

9. DeprecatedMark-Squeak3:10 - mark deprecated
10. DeprecatedClean-Squeak3:10 - remove stuff that was deprecated in
3.9/3.10 [done]
11. Save Packages [done]
12. Clean-Squeak3:10 - remove stuff that is old or can be reloaded [
Some done - sufficient to be an example ]
13. Strip-Squeak3:10 - back to minimal [ Some done - sufficient to be
an example ]

>>> 4. How does one best track progress for 3.11? Is there an update
>>> stream? Are there Monticello releases? Mantis entries? Installer
>>> scripts? Alpha images? All of them?
>> 1. packages@lists.squeakfoundation.com - receives emails of all of the
>> monticello package commits for the components that contribute to 3.11
>
> I've briefly looked at it and I don't understand the purpose. There
> seem to be hundreds of commit messages about Monticello, Installer,
> Packages, Sake, Tasks etc.
Given that our goal is to put in place a process for generating images
with Bob. Take for example the step of loading a workspace with a ReadMe
and an Introduction Release Notes etc. These steps have been done
manually for years, and there is no Monticello cabability for
collaboratively managing text files, and Workspace is hopeless at
saving/loading files

So...

The Commit Messages you see are:

Monticello - Adding files support.
Installer - This is a brand new Installer implementation with the same
API (thanks to Matthew)
Tasks - thats what is specifying the build so adding a Packages beta
unload: 'Kernel-Tracer'. to a task is matched by.....
Packages - adding a PackagesBeta-#KernelTracer entry
> And zero about Kernel, System, Graphics etc. Which doesn't look like a
> 3.11 commit list but rather like a KPH-dev list ;-) (nothing wrong
> with that but in terms of tracking 3.11 progress I would expect to see
> just as much traffic in other areas)
The fixes applied are not commited until the first step of the
taskRELEASECANDIDATE (see previous road map email) and we havent been
there for a while.
>> 2. release@lists.squeakfoundation.com - discussion on the release
>> (though irc is our preferred means of communication)
> If you don't mind, can we have these discussions on Squeak-dev? I
> never liked the idea of "private" release lists too much - I think the
> release is the most important artifact produced here so why not
> discuss it out in the open so that people can follow along?
I do mind actually for various reasons (private mail)
>> 3. www.squeaksource.com/Tasks - has the actual build tasks, the roadmap
>> is embodied in this code. This is where you can contribute tasks, or
>> define your own personal test builds for Bob to build and test for you
> How does one read this? When I look at the code there is a
> taskRELEASECANDIDATE which (from what I can tell) unloads a bunch of
> packages, unloads the tests and that's it. No fixes, no loading of any
> of the new stuff you were referring to above? Or am I misreading this?
taskTESTCANDIDATE is run first this generates a version of 3.10 with
stuff added

taskRELEASECANDIDATE starts with the output of taskTESTCANDIDATE and
just tidies it up and updates the version number.
>> 4. www.squeaksource.com/Packages - loading and unloading packages, this
>> is where you can contribute knowledge about what works where, AND how to
>> unload things. e.g. "Castrait" (see previous mail) could be published
>> here, as could SqueakByExample. Recent addition include a Kernel-Tracer
>> unload, and a Null unload, a ProcessSpecific unload, AllTests (hunts
>> down tests for the loaded packages), and Tasks (loads tasks for this
>> version and the next)
> Again, I'm not sure what exactly I'm seeing here.
Most of the load/unload scripts are handled by the #defaultAction which
simply uses the data supplied in

self info url: 'http://host/project/package-author-1.mcz'.

Any lump of code that can be moved into a package is committed to
squeaksource.com/311 and gets an entry in Packages, probably in
PackagesDev, or PackagesBeta, so that it can be reloaded. If we would
rather keep that lump in the release, it gets an entry in Packages so
that it can be unloaded easily later.
>> 5. A Mantis revival is on the way. There will be some queries for you to
>> see progress on bug fixing very clearly.
>
> That would be very useful.
>
>> 6. Image build script is Installer installUrl:
>> 'http://installer.pbwiki.com/311'. When it completes (it used to) we
>> will publish an image.
>
> Thanks, I'm running it now.
>
>>> 5. How does one best contribute to 3.11? (both, for more long-term
>>> continued development as well as the ten-minute scratch-an-itch kind
>>> of exercise)
>> a. Small fixes and Additional Tests - ChangeSet on Mantis, AND an
>> Installer script on mantis.
>> b. Bigger Kernel contributions add your task to ReleaseSqueak310, and
>> add it as a dependency, or step to one of the build steps.
>> c. Kernel contributions can be made as a monticello package which is
>> merged into the kernel by a task.
>> d. Unloading stuff - changeset on mantis, and unload script in Packages
>> e. Knowledge of what loads where (basic dependencies -> Universes)
>> anything more Packages
>> f. Tutorials/Readmes/Intrductions use the MC files feature to put the
>> files under monticello, and add a corresponding Packages entry for
>> load/unload
>> g. Build scripts for Bob, particularly the OneClick image
>>> I think that maybe one of our problems here is that we lost a little
>>> track of what exactly the goals for 3.11 are and where we're in the
http://installer.pbwiki.com/Squeak311Proposal

The only goal left in that page to be completed is Bob, and underscores
in selectors.

The goals for 3.11 are fundamentally based around getting Bob working,
and to showcase a release being built with Bob.
The more work is done on the image stuff the less work is done on Bob.

[ Bob status - Bob is probably less than 1 perfect working day away from
release ].
>>> process relative to those and I think get some clarity on that might
>>> help for future steps.
>> hope that helps a bit
>
> It sure does.
>
> Cheers,
> - Andreas
thanks for having a go.

Keith

#Squeak - 20081209 - 11:09

matthewf
:
keithy: I think what I'll do is write up a "how to contribute" policy document, with instructions on making packages, bug fixes, how fixes get applied to packages, how to generate a release, and whether patches are applied at build time, or upstream
[
11:09am
]
matthewf
:
then you, I, and Ken can ratify it on the release list
[
11:09am
]
matthewf
:
then present it to squeak-dev
[
11:10am
]
keithy
:
I am aiming to release the "build candidate today
[
11:10am
]
matthewf
:
what is a build candidate?
[
11:10am
]
keithy
:
its the base we are starting from
[
11:10am
]
keithy
:
its the build up to the point where the fixes start to get applied
[
11:11am
]
matthewf
:
ok
[
11:11am
]
keithy
:
i.e. LPF +  updates SM, Universes
[
11:11am
]
keithy
:
so its basically 3.10+LPF+Packages+Tasks
[
11:11am
]
keithy
:
so its basically 3.10+LPF+Packages+Tasks+UNiverses+SqueakMap+SUNit-improved
[
11:12am
]
keithy
:
all existing packages in the image are upgraded
[
11:12am
]
matthewf
:
maybe you should write up what it is on the wiki
[
11:12am
]
keithy
:
it would make a good candidate for 3.10.3
[
11:12am
]
keithy
:
sure
[
11:13am
]
matley left the chat room. (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[
11:14am
]
matthewf
:
so, is it about time to bring 3.11 out of hiding, you would say?
[
11:14am
]
matthewf
:
before mc1.6 is ready?
[
11:14am
]
keithy
:

erm... bring it to the point where contributors like jerome know what is going on from their point of view

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Waiting for 3.11 artifacts.

At 4:00 AM -0800 12/9/08, squeak-dev-request@lists.squeakfoundation.org apparently wrote:
>Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:54:31 +0000
>From: Keith Hodges <keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Waiting for 3.11 artifacts.
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Message-ID: <493E1627.305@yahoo.co.uk>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Andreas Raab wrote:
>> These are *excellent* thoughts. Perhaps we can get a bit more clarity
>> by summarizing the answers to the following questions (apologies if
>> this amounts to repeating things that have been said many times before):
>>
>> 1. What is the current status of 3.11 - has work on it "officially"
>> started? (yes/no/dunno are all fine answers here; I'm trying to
>> establish the basics in terms of where in the process we are)
>I have held back from saying it is "officially" started, due to pressure
>to deliver on work deadlines, which have suffered due to my extreme
>domestic pressures recently. Home life has returned to normal but still
>my paid work is a priority.
>
>Nevertheless the goals were stated in the paper that Matthew presented
>to the board, and those goals have been worked upon and stuff is in the
>process of coming online.
>> 2. What are the goals for 3.11? I have seen references to
>> http://installer.pbwiki.com/311 - is this "the place" for it? (again
>> yes/no/perhaps are all good answers, I just want to make sure we're
>> using the same frame of reference)
>"THE" place of reference is the 311-Proposal accessible from that page.
>
>Matthew might update things in the next week or two.
>> 3. Where are we in the process towards these goals? Both from a
>> high-level perspective as well as the nitty-gritty details of things
>> that don't work but need to be addressed for a release.
>Many of the parts are in place. We are waiting for Bob to bring them all
>together, Bob was waiting for Rio to support ftp seamlessly.
>> 4. How does one best track progress for 3.11? Is there an update
>> stream? Are there Monticello releases? Mantis entries? Installer
>> scripts? Alpha images? All of them?
>1. packages@lists.squeakfoundation.com - receives emails of all of the
>monticello package commits for the components that contribute to 3.11
>
>2. release@lists.squeakfoundation.com - discussion on the release
>(though irc is our preferred means of communication)
>
>3. www.squeaksource.com/Tasks - has the actual build tasks, the roadmap
>is embodied in this code. This is where you can contribute tasks, or
>define your own personal test builds for Bob to build and test for you
>
>4. www.squeaksource.com/Packages - loading and unloading packages, this
>is where you can contribute knowledge about what works where, AND how to
>unload things. e.g. "Castrait" (see previous mail) could be published
>here, as could SqueakByExample. Recent addition include a Kernel-Tracer
>unload, and a Null unload, a ProcessSpecific unload, AllTests (hunts
>down tests for the loaded packages), and Tasks (loads tasks for this
>version and the next)
>
>5. A Mantis revival is on the way. There will be some queries for you to
>see progress on bug fixing very clearly.
>
>6. Image build script is Installer installUrl:
>'http://installer.pbwiki.com/311'. When it completes (it used to) we
>will publish an image.
>> 5. How does one best contribute to 3.11? (both, for more long-term
>> continued development as well as the ten-minute scratch-an-itch kind
>> of exercise)
>a. Small fixes and Additional Tests - ChangeSet on Mantis, AND an
>Installer script on mantis.
>b. Bigger Kernel contributions add your task to ReleaseSqueak310, and
>add it as a dependency, or step to one of the build steps.
>c. Kernel contributions can be made as a monticello package which is
>merged into the kernel by a task.
>d. Unloading stuff - changeset on mantis, and unload script in Packages
>e. Knowledge of what loads where (basic dependencies -> Universes)
>anything more Packages
>f. Tutorials/Readmes/Intrductions use the MC files feature to put the
>files under monticello, and add a corresponding Packages entry for
>load/unload
>g. Build scripts for Bob, particularly the OneClick image
>> I think that maybe one of our problems here is that we lost a little
>> track of what exactly the goals for 3.11 are and where we're in the
>> process relative to those and I think get some clarity on that might
>> help for future steps.
>hope that helps a bit
>
>Keith