>>> >> >> Why do you need to support Squeak 3.8? This is how many years old? >> >> I really do not understand this idea to be compatible to all old versions >> ever. > > I respect whatever approach is used to make a usefull set of software > portable across multiple versions / implementations / OS, as long as it works. > >> In the end it will just make sure that no progress is possible at all. > > I'm less impressed by someone who says that 2.0 is the stable and won't be > fixed, and that 3.0 isn't fixed as well.
Who says that? We always said that we will back-port all imported fixes to 2.0.
We will not back-port *everything*, especially
not improvements that are not fixes, because then there would be no difference
between Pharo3 and Pharo2 (and these
tend to introduce new problems, making it very hard to stabilize).
But it is clear that this is a fine line: one persons fix is the others persons
bug, so we tend to be conservative.
But nevertheless, all show-stopping bugs should be fixed.
right now, there are 3 bugs reported for Pharo 2.0:
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/filters/8/2-0-Work-Needed
none of which is fixed in Pharo3 yet.
In general: It is *a lot* of work, and it is hard to get right in all cases.
But considering that: do we really do that badly?
Marcus
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
