On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:39:13AM -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
Please see
http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/meeting-report-for-6172009/
Thanks Ken,
With respect to:
We spent the bulk of the meeting talking about 3.11 status. We didn't come to any significant conclusions but resolved to increase communication with the release team and compile as much information as possible about the current status of this project and where it is going next.
I would like to request that, in the context of the 3.11 status, the board also discuss the reestablishment of an update stream for Squeak releases. Squeak has been without a usable update stream since Squeak 3.8. In my view, this is simply inexcusable.
<rant> Working on cool new tools to improve the update stream is not a substitute for providing an actual working update stream to the community. Over a period of several months^h^h^h^h^hyears, it has been really quite embarrassing to watch various attempts to distribute updates in a frankenstream of Monticello archives and 10MB monolithic images. This is followed by complaints that nobody is paying any attention to the updates. Finally, we have great distress and wringing of hands when it is discovered that our change histories have been destroyed (because there was no update stream, d'oh!) and we can't figure out our licensing because we don't even know who made changes, or how, when and why the changes got into the image. </rant>
Dave
On 6/19/09 2:33 AM, "David T. Lewis" lewis@mail.msen.com wrote:
I would like to request that, in the context of the 3.11 status, the board also discuss the reestablishment of an update stream for Squeak releases. Squeak has been without a usable update stream since Squeak 3.8. In my view, this is simply inexcusable.
And I saying this for two years now. Seems Board don't see who works and who only talks . And wonder why forks arise...
Edgar
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 01:33 -0400, David T. Lewis wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:39:13AM -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
Please see
http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/meeting-report-for-6172009/
Thanks Ken,
With respect to:
We spent the bulk of the meeting talking about 3.11 status. We didn't come to any significant conclusions but resolved to increase communication with the release team and compile as much information as possible about the current status of this project and where it is going next.
I would like to request that, in the context of the 3.11 status, the board also discuss the reestablishment of an update stream for Squeak releases. Squeak has been without a usable update stream since Squeak 3.8. In my view, this is simply inexcusable.
I'm sure I must be misunderstanding your intent here. The update stream continues to exist and was used for both 3.9 and 3.10. Of course for the bulk of those two releases most of the updates triggered the download and installation of a mcz (sometimes a mcd), although late in 3.10 use of MC was dropped and standard updates were used again. It has not been used for 3.11 so far because the release team has been concentrating on infrastructure meant to increase automated testing and reduce the effort required to harvest changes. Once that is farther along updates in some form should appear rather quickly, albeit perhaps not in the classic update stream.
<rant> Working on cool new tools to improve the update stream is not a substitute for providing an actual working update stream to the community. Over a period of several months^h^h^h^h^hyears, it has been really quite embarrassing to watch various attempts to distribute updates in a frankenstream of Monticello archives and 10MB monolithic images. This is followed by complaints that nobody is paying any attention to the updates. Finally, we have great distress and wringing of hands when it is discovered that our change histories have been destroyed (because there was no update stream, d'oh!) and we can't figure out our licensing because we don't even know who made changes, or how, when and why the changes got into the image. </rant>
Regarding the perceived 'distress': there is no less information regarding contributors in a MCZ than in a fileout. It just adds another location that has to be checked and is just not quite as easy to examine as a small fileout.
I think you are misunderstanding the difficulties of the licensing problems, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether a change was submitted as a fileout or as an mcz. We have the same information in either case, perhaps even more in mcz. At this point the main problem is just trying to figure out what amount of change to a method, for example, by a person is significant enough to warrant a rewrite if that person has not submitted a license agreement and, if a rewrite is needed, what procedure needs to be used for that. Discussion with the Software Freedom Consortium is going on but frankly the number of people both willing to help with this and sufficiently knowledgeable of the situation is so small that progress is exceedingly slow.
Dave
Ken
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 02:22:06PM -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
I'm sure I must be misunderstanding your intent here. The update stream continues to exist and was used for both 3.9 and 3.10. Of course for the bulk of those two releases most of the updates triggered the download and installation of a mcz (sometimes a mcd), although late in 3.10 use of MC was dropped and standard updates were used again.
By "update stream" I mean an update stream exactly like what has been used by Squeak Central and by other teams since then. I am not refering to the various processes and tools that were used for 3.9 and beyond.
It has not been used for 3.11 so far because the release team has been concentrating on infrastructure meant to increase automated testing and reduce the effort required to harvest changes.
Indeed. Good stuff I'm sure, but this is not the same thing as adhering to a process that works well and that exists today.
Dave
Hi Ken,
Am 19.06.2009 um 21:22 schrieb Ken Causey:
needed, what procedure needs to be used for that. Discussion with the Software Freedom Consortium is going on but frankly the number of people both willing to help with this and sufficiently knowledgeable of the situation is so small that progress is exceedingly slow.
As far as I remember the last official status of 4.0 was the following:
=========== The Short Version =========== We are currently awaiting legal advice from the Software Freedom Law Center [3]. It is recommended that you avoid contributing to the relicensing effort pending further notice
Has that changed? Probably I did miss the announcement?
Cheers, - Bernhard
"Bernhard" == Bernhard Pieber bernhard@pieber.com writes:
=========== The Short Version =========== We are currently awaiting legal advice from the Software Freedom Law Center [3]. It is recommended that you avoid contributing to the relicensing effort pending further notice
Bernhard> Has that changed? Probably I did miss the announcement?
Not exactly. Are you familiar with the phrase "Adding people to a late project generally makes it more late?".
The problem is that there are only a small number of people who know what the problems are, and they're currently sorting out what those are, and then more resources can be brought on if needed. Adding *more* resources at the moment who are not already familiar with the task will most likely just slow it down, not speed it up.
I want this to happen as soon as possible, but it's a process that requires precision because of the legal implications.
If and when more people are needed, you can be assured that a call for helpers will be very loud and repeated. :) But at the moment, we're just getting all of the key players talking with SFC to see how this final integration needs to go from here.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Randal L. Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.comwrote:
"Bernhard" == Bernhard Pieber bernhard@pieber.com writes:
=========== The Short Version =========== We are currently awaiting legal advice from the Software Freedom Law Center [3]. It is recommended that you avoid contributing to the relicensing effort pending further notice
Bernhard> Has that changed? Probably I did miss the announcement?
Not exactly. Are you familiar with the phrase "Adding people to a late project generally makes it more late?".
The Mythical Man-Month what an excellent book. It is 30 years old and things are the same!!!
The problem is that there are only a small number of people who know what the problems are, and they're currently sorting out what those are, and then more resources can be brought on if needed. Adding *more* resources at the moment who are not already familiar with the task will most likely just slow it down, not speed it up.
I want this to happen as soon as possible, but it's a process that requires precision because of the legal implications.
If and when more people are needed, you can be assured that a call for helpers will be very loud and repeated. :) But at the moment, we're just getting all of the key players talking with SFC to see how this final integration needs to go from here.
-- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 merlyn@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bernhard Pieber -
David T. Lewis -
Edgar J. De Cleene -
Ken Causey -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
merlyn＠stonehenge.com