On 30.05.2010 23:17, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi!
So much discussion about that little post... :)
On 05/30/2010 10:10 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Yes but in that case
try 1.0
try 1.1 alpha
Hmmm, Stephane still likes to top post I notice :)
I do not know what you are implying. But I think that we are trying to building
a process for pharo
so this discussion is only about that: what are the expectations of people and
what can we deliver
and if all these stuff make sense.
Conclusion
- we can only retrofit showstoppers fixes
- even good documentation of changes may not make people not failed but
we can try something simple.
- short release cycles is a must and we are doing it now.
Anyway, Igor nailed it pretty good with his post actually - I was merely documenting
"what I was trying to do and ended up doing".
And one thing to note is that I should have tried 1.1. But... why didn't I?
I am not sure the website can/should be different - but fact remains that I got "fooled"
by the fact that 1.0 was just released and I really (stupid I know, but hey...) didn't think it was
to be considered "outdated" already :)
Yes it really is.
Get the feel with 1.1. It is ***really*** better.
Sort of like 4.0 and 4.1, although the gap is a bit smaller :)
Cheers,
Henry
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
