[Seaside] Seaside 2.7a1 versions 169
philippe.marschall at gmail.com
Mon Feb 12 21:51:13 UTC 2007
2007/2/12, Michael Roberts <mike at mjr104.co.uk>:
> I agree with the general sentiments on both sides of the thread, but
> I am not sure I find this correct:
> > I only suggest that since
> > posting to the main path is intentional it should be respected and
> > that not
> > bothering to include someone else's changes is bad form.
> My understanding from talking to Lukas and Philippe is that anyone
> can post to SqueakSource/Seaside if that is what you mean by the main
> path. This is to make it easy for the maintainers (anyone who merges
> regularly in the repository) to consider code. I am free to post
> something bogus to the repository and for it to ultimately cause a
> discussion but no merge.
Yes, this is the preferred way. If you have anything don't be afraid
commit it (with a descriptive comment if possible), this way people
see it. Please don't use mantis. If it is bugged and your comment says
so that's perfectly fine. It would be nice if you register at
SqueakSource but not required. If you feel that it is not getting
enough attention (e.g. being merged or used as ancestor) start a
discussion here or ask someone privately. In general I'd like to see
more contributions from the "community" as neither Lukas nor me see
ourselves as Seaside maintainers (I hope I understood you correctly in
this matter Lukas, otherwise please forgive me). We just happen to
commit most of the code these days (besides Michel).
> So I would agree with Philippe that the top
> number has no semantics. You might have been very fortunate in the
> past the the 'head' revision has always been merged by lukas/philippe/
> michel/avi/whoever and therefore you can trust it because you trust
> these people. I have had a head revision in the past but I wouldn't
> trust it; it's just a side effect of the upload before a maintainer
> merges it. Lukas/Philippe do you see it this way?
> What I assume Philippe is saying is that we need some meta
> information in monticello to say 'this' version is the official one.
> I don't know if MCC does this or not. In the past this has been done
> either via SM releases or more currently via Lukas' installer. I am
> not sure there is any point to marking individual versions of
> monticello projects official or not. Increasingly, projects are
> dependent on other projects and therefore they need to be grouped to
> have useful meaning. Is that MCC or does MCC do something else, or a
I see how "we don't do releases" is a problem for people as they don't
know which version to load. It's just that I don't see a simple way to
fix this in a way that doesn't cause a lot administration effort.
SqueakSource has the concept of a blessed version, maybe we should
revive that. If someone wants to do release management please step up
More information about the Seaside