On Dec 14, 2007 2:05 PM, Scott Wilson <
i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think packages that are
installed by Quarks should be tested and stable.
but one of the things about smalltalky-things and especially the sc environment is that the community often agrees to make changes to the default library, and this often impacts quarks.
so an svn quark is assumed to be kept easily up to date with the svn (HEAD) of sc itself.
my assumption is that a quark is HEAD, just as sc is currently HEAD.
for a binary distribution, its supposed to be a freeze frame.
in some cases (perhaps for crucial when it gets quarked), it would be useful to branch off a
3.3 compat quark of it. I would definitely do that if and when I change the gui system.
that way the day to day quark can be updated to keep up to date with major changes to the GUI framework etc. keep it operational, get recent bug fixes in.
If you're using what
is essentially a development repository for distribution you will
always have the problem of bleeding edge stuff breaking something.
its more about fixes that respond to other changes in the eco-system.
i.e. use at your own risk and be prepared for the possibility
of unstable stuff.
that could be easily said of the entire of SC :)
and that of course is the point of the binary releases.
and really, leute, considering the amazing amount of frustration and head scratching that sc unleashes on its victims, is this business about svn really such a road block ?
I can remember when I first started, days and days without a sound. then one sound ... then I get ambitious and try to improve it... then no sound for days.
svn is easy, you can just google and get the answer.
-cx