> On 18 Aug 2017, at 15:41, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: > > If you don’t mind - let me try a second attempt at paraphrasing what you are > saying (just to make sure I’m clear, but it might help others too). > > We start each yearly cycle with an X0 new release (our current release is 6). > Then there may be point releases 6.1, 6.2 etc where there is a breaking > change (typically a new VM. Our last point release was 6.1). > > Thought the year (typically every few days) there are “hot fixes” that > causes an image number change (these have worked there way through the CI, > and have triggered a new artefect). These images can be found at > http://files.pharo.org/image/60/ <http://files.pharo.org/image/60/> (where 60 > designates the last release cycle, we don’t use point designations for this > directory name). > > When you download the latest point release, you are getting all the major > elements of that release plus any of the hot fixes that have occurred since > that official release. So you have the most up to date version of a stable > Pharo at the time that you download this file from: http://pharo.org/download > <http://pharo.org/download> >
yes > The implication of the above, is that if you want to revert to exactly what > was present in the launch of an official point release, you will need to > download the latest release from Pharo.org <http://pharo.org/> and then find > the image number that corresponded to that release at > http://files.pharo.org/image/60/ <http://files.pharo.org/image/60/> (is there > an easy way to determine this and then find that file? Or is there an > official archive of the first point release?). > > If you want to say up to date, you should periodically download the latest > point release (or you can simply find that latest named image file from: > http://files.pharo.org/image/60/ <http://files.pharo.org/image/60/> and use > your current VM). > > If the above is the case - it seems like a reasonable way of operating, > although it might be good to know what the exact image number was in the > first issued point release (just for traceability). > > Have I now got it straight now? > Yes. And maybe it is not good… maybe it would be better to accumulate the changes between the point release without changing the download and have the version numbers more prominent in the downloaded files (so that it is easy to find old versions, too). With Pharo7 we can improve this... Marcus
