proposal for starting work on partitioning
goran.krampe at bluefish.se
goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Tue Mar 8 11:05:55 UTC 2005
Avi Bryant <avi.bryant at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:45:11 +0100, goran.krampe at bluefish.se
> <goran.krampe at bluefish.se> wrote:
> > Again, this presumes that we are focused on splitting. I would very much
> > want us to stake out regardless of split work. In other words, let us
> > throw a rough PI list on the Swiki (as you say) and let people sign up
> > interest regardless if they immediately intend to hack on splitting.
> Sure, that's fine - if people would also like to declare interest in
> maintaining a package, as well as in doing immediate splitting work,
> that's clearly good information to record. I happen to disagree with
Ok, goodie. :)
> you about priorities: the most important thing, for me, is to enable
> the packages to be independently maintainable; only once that's
> possible, and once we've had a little bit of experience doing things
> that way, are real maintainers likely to emerge (or, for some
> packages, they won't - but that's interesting to know too). So by all
Possibly. But I am betting we can get people signing up even though the
pieces they are interested in are intermingled. :)
> means let's start gathering information about who might want to
> Steward what, but I won't personally feel any real sense of progress
> until packages start taking concrete, accurate shape inside the image.
Well, I am just cautious given earlier attempts that have stalled. :)
And I also think that even intertwined packages would benefit from
having clear assigned maintainers/stewards.
> There's no real need to argue about this, since both can happen in
Exactly, no argument whatsoever. :)
> But is anyone else interested in either of those things?
> The list as a whole has been pretty quiet. Maybe we're covering the
> wrong topics?
Well, I am all with you - but I agree it has been quiet.
> > A special stream is of course a way, but what are the reasons for not
> > using the 3.9 alpha stream? If this is in order to get a quicker
> > turnaround I think we instead could put one person as a special reviewer
> > and then that person can feed it straight into 3.9alpha. Like Doug
> > (being release manager) or you with the trust of Doug or whatever.
> Well, I'm guessing we'll be doing some things (like categorizing huge
> swaths of methods as "*orphaned") that wouldn't be great for mass
> consumption; I'd feel better if we were in a private stream while
> starting this work, anyway.
Ok, I agree.
So, then unless someone shouts Bloody Murder within a few hours :) then
I would think we should move ahead with yourt plan - create the Swiki
page, create a first shot at a list of PIs for current 3.9alpha and ask
squeak-dev for people stepping forward for either split work or
stewardship and sign up.
When we tried this the last time we ended up with trying to change the
categories etc, and got stalled doing that - so my advice would be
a) Don't bother. Just throw together a list of PIs to begin with given
the current 3.9alpha.
b) Sit down yourself and whip together a changeset first and post that
to your new updatestream. Don't bother discussing it here - just go. :)
Go Avi, go!
More information about the Packages