At 20:19 14.11.00 +0300, Mike Rutenberg wrote:
>Bert Freudenberg <bert at isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:
> > IMHO the SourceForge facilities should be reserved for VM platform
> > support code related stuff only.
>
>I would strongly favour starting to do more industrial strength tracking
>of bugs, fixes, and proposed enhancements.  This has everything to do
>with ensuring that (1) things do not fall through the cracks and (2)
>that all relevant information is available in one place.

I strongly agree with Mike.  The current version is too chaotic.  If you 
think, the mentioned sourceforge bug tracker should be reserved for the VM 
stuff, can sourceforge have only one bug list per project or can we create 
another one.  Or should we simply setup another sourceforge group?

Sourceforge seems to very powerful.  Unfortunalty, it also seems to be a 
little bit instable.  Often, I cannot reach that server - don't know 
why.  However it's wellknown and this could also help to make Squeak known.

>I think we have multiple problems now, and taken together they end up
>causing a lot of frustration and wasted effort.  Bug reports are not
>tracked and I suspect often get forgotten in the run of time.

Yes, definitely.

>  Bug fixes (that work well!) are often not incorportated into the system 
> because they get forgotten.

I can only repeat myself and ask all bug report provider to actively lobby 
and make sure that their fixes are incorporated.

>(I suspect it is too much distraction to write this as a Squeak server and 
>application, though I don't know).

Well, sourceforge is available *now*.  I consider this as a big 
advantage.  My question would be, how well does the CVS /patches / files 
stuff of sourceforge work together with Squeak's changesets / images / etc?


bye
--
Stefan Matthias Aust  //  Bevor wir fallen, fallen wir lieber auf