got it well don't worry. Stef
On May 31, 2010, at 12:02 AM, Göran Krampe wrote: > Hi! > > On 05/30/2010 11:17 PM, 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. > > Eh, "top posting". See this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style > > So it was not an implication of anything, I just joked a little. > > ...but I see in this post that you are interleaving instead :) > >> 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. > > Yeah, I am all with you. > > Just wondering if... well, I chose 1.0 since it is clearly what the website > "wants me to do" so to speak. And 1.1 is mentioned as "bleeding edge" etc. > > But if you think I will have a smoother ride in 1.1, then perhaps the site > should somehow indicate that. But again, I really don't know if that is a > good idea. > >>> 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 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 "outdated" already :) 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. > > Then perhaps you *should* write that on the website somehow. Like: > > "Even though 1.1 is still in alpha development we feel it is even in its > current state a much better environment than 1.0 for development. But it is > of course not yet a stable baseline." > > Also, if you only backport showstoppers (and not "bugs") then 1.0 is as of > today not even preferrable from a stability standpoint, or? > > regards, Göran > > PS. I am really trying to be constructive here, these problems are generic in > nature and Squeak.org suffer from the exact same issues of course - devel vs > stable etc. Just curious how Pharo should "talk to newcomers" about it. > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
