On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 14 Dec 2015, at 12:21, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> This is great news. Thanks Eliot and Esteban. From the 2GB limit I >> take this to be 32-bit Spur? > > yes of course. > We are already working on 64bits spur but is not ready yet (it will be some > point of 2016) > >> >> Is it feasible to jump the image build numbers to make that first >> image requiring a new VM align on a 100s build numbers. I see we are >> currently 50496. 50500 is nice and distinctive, but even even 50600 >> would be fine if the last few 400s are consumed in the meantime. > > mmm… that I don’t know… correlation of version numbers is usually important > for us (for statistics purposes)… also changing number generation is more > annoying than you would think (that’s why we don’t have 4.1, 4.2, etc.). > but well… everything is possible, we’ll see :)
Or do we just append "-spur" to the build number - but there will be no new builds without the "-spur" tag, and continue this up to Pharo 5 Release. I am just thinking of making it easy to distinguish the required VM when I want to open old builds to bisect which build instorduced a bug. cheer -ben
