I think that the intention of the "you break it, you fix it" rule is that we must take responsibility for the changes that we make, and that we should not intentionally cause problems and then expect someone else to clean up the mess. All of the trunk contributors have been doing their best to respect this rule, and it works very well.

Sometimes a change is made to trunk that causes a serious problem that affects all of us, such as breaking the update stream (and I have been guilty of this myself). The problem may not be immediately obvious to the person making the change, or that person may not be able to quickly fix the issue. In those cases, I would expect that anyone who is able to fix it should do so as quickly as possible.

For other kinds of concerns, I think that as a matter of courtesy it is good practice to give the person who caused the problem the first opportunity to revert the change or fix the problem.

Dave

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:48:56AM -0700, marcel.taeumel wrote:

Hey Squeak Community,

according to our development model here: https://squeakboard.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/a-new-community-development-mod...

If I break something, I am responsible for fixing it.

So, if I meant to fix a bug such as here: http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Morphic-mt-1119-mcz-td4890816.html

And somebody raises an issue about new bugs added or some use case missed, is there a general need to revert that before further disscussions? More importantly, wouldn't I be in charge of reverting it? And not somebody else...

Note that we all assume that any trunk committer thoroughly investigates the changes made and fixes yet discusses obvious issues --- before committing such changes. This fundamental level of trust comes with being allowed to commit to trunk in the first place. Nevertheless, remaining issues can easily discussed on the mailing list and the responsible committer can fix/revert them right away -- or delegate it to someone else if time is rare.

At least, this is what I expect from every trunk committer. :-)

It seems* to work pretty well: http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-ToolBuilder-Morphic-kfr-159-mcz-td4879754.ht... http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Collections-mt-688-mcz-td4889675.html http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Monticello-mt-629-mcz-td4887731.html http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Morphic-cmm-615-mcz-td4524250.html http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Graphics-tfel-327-mcz-td4880035.html

Sometimes, it seems* to not work: http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Morphic-cmm-1052-mcz-td4862408.htm http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-SMLoader-cmm-85-mcz-td4850418.html http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Morphic-cmm-1120-mcz-td4890853.html http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Tools-cmm-693-mcz-td4890497.html

What is your opinion?

Best, Marcel

• No limit or warranty. Off-list discussions not considered. Just

exemplified.

-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Who-breaks-it-fixes-it-A-Question-about-our-Developmen... Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I literally spent weeks developing and refining and doing usability-testing of the filtering function before presenting it to the community **five years** ago. Now someone came along in one afternoon this week and deleted features that were purposefully designed that way. They also fundamentally changed the way list widgets respond to keyboard input since Squeak 3.x more than a decade ago!

The date of the methods of these breakages matches the date of the commit. Here is what our development process says about this:

* Exercise caution. This is a running system and breaking it needlessly is generally frowned upon. * Restrain yourself. Getting developer access doesn’t mean you are free to put in every pet extension you always wanted to have without discussion. * If in doubt, ask. This is the corollary to the restrain yourself rule. You’re not under pressure to ship a product, so you have the time to send a note saying “hey, I’m planning to fix this old issue and it may have some side effect here or there. Anyone having a problem with that?”

I don't think someone who causes such a fundamental breakage with no discussion should be offended when someone fixes it with no discussion. They should just acknowledge their commit was premature like when the situation was reversed earlier this year when they needed to revert my code:

http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Morphic-cmm-1074-mcz-td4877176.html#a4877196

Our development model does not specify any rules about how fixes should be made, whether typing new code or reverting code, nor who should do it.

Maybe this is just an exceptional week this week? I have no desire to revert anyones code, I've always preferred that we simply follow our process as written, above, like Eliot did the other day. Slapping needless graffitti on the Tracing Messages Browser which I developed in VA, VW and Squeak in the 1990's was just offensive to me. I stand my these two reverts. If someone is truly open to an impartial discussion, they will be willing to begin the discussion as a proposed improvement to the status-quo, with such proposals that make these kinds of fundamental UI changes, beginning in the Inbox, not trunk.

Best, Chris

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:48 AM, marcel.taeumel Marcel.Taeumel@hpi.de wrote:

Hey Squeak Community,

according to our development model here: https://squeakboard.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/a-new-community-development-mod...

If I break something, I am responsible for fixing it.

So, if I meant to fix a bug such as here: http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Morphic-mt-1119-mcz-td4890816.html

And somebody raises an issue about new bugs added or some use case missed, is there a general need to revert that before further disscussions? More importantly, wouldn't I be in charge of reverting it? And not somebody else...

Note that we all assume that any trunk committer thoroughly investigates the changes made and fixes yet discusses obvious issues --- before committing such changes. This fundamental level of trust comes with being allowed to commit to trunk in the first place. Nevertheless, remaining issues can easily discussed on the mailing list and the responsible committer can fix/revert them right away -- or delegate it to someone else if time is rare.

At least, this is what I expect from every trunk committer. :-)

It seems* to work pretty well: http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-ToolBuilder-Morphic-kfr-159-mcz-td4879754.ht... http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Collections-mt-688-mcz-td4889675.html http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Monticello-mt-629-mcz-td4887731.html http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Morphic-cmm-615-mcz-td4524250.html http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Graphics-tfel-327-mcz-td4880035.html

Sometimes, it seems* to not work: http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Morphic-cmm-1052-mcz-td4862408.htm http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-SMLoader-cmm-85-mcz-td4850418.html http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Morphic-cmm-1120-mcz-td4890853.html http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-Tools-cmm-693-mcz-td4890497.html

What is your opinion?

Best, Marcel

• No limit or warranty. Off-list discussions not considered. Just

exemplified.

-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Who-breaks-it-fixes-it-A-Question-about-our-Developmen... Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.