Harvesting process (was: Re: [updates] 51 for 3.1 alpha)

danielv at netvision.net.il danielv at netvision.net.il
Wed Oct 3 15:37:38 UTC 2001


Hi Doug.
I think the table is a great start - the information is out there, I
think it's better than private mails (at least as a rule).
Skimming through it, I took note of the Celeste related stuff, and
updated an entry that I knew to have already been integrated.

Daniel Vainsencher

Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
>
> danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
> 
> > Dear Harvesters,
> > First of all, I also want to thank you for doing this work, it's really
> > important.
> >
> > And now a request - is it possible to make sure the you give some
> > indication as to the fate and faults of anything considered for
> > inclusion but rejected?
> >
> > I'm assuming that you scan everything submitted. Some things have
> > problems, some things seem to be of no interest to the public, and so
> > forth. As a contributor, I'd like to know which felled my contributions,
> > and seeing as you already review everything, it should not be hard to
> > get this feedback to the authors. I know this is more work, and you're
> > already undertaking quite a bit, but I think it's really important.
> 
> We have discussed this, and I agree that this feedback is important.
> 
> For now, the way to find out the status of past submissions is to check the sqfixes tables site that Bob mentioned. (http://209.143.91.36/super/415)  I was going to mention this earlier, but Bob beat me to it. :)  This site contains tables with all of the submissions in the left column, and the current status in the right column.
> 
> This might not be quite as convenient (for the authors) as getting feedback mailed directly to each author, but I think it's a significant step forward... much better than no feedback (the previous situation).
> 
> On the other hand, even though most submissions have some sort of status or comment filled in, as Bob mentioned there are still quite a few blank ones with no feedback.  Much of that was probably due to there being a lot (~500) of old submissions to wade through this time... several months' worth.  I think things will get better as we get caught up, and also as we have time to improve the process.
> 
> > Otherwise people have to either ask (which is more of a bother) or
> > assume things that are probably not encouraging them to contribute
> > further...
> >
> > A mail to the list enumerating the issues with each submission not
> > accepted seems like a good way to do it.
> >
> > This could also be a spur for people to talk about what submissions they
> > do and don't care about, and for fixing/improving those that merit it.
> 
> That's not a bad thought.  I'm not sure we're at the stage of being able to do that just yet, though...
> 
> > I think this feedback/disscussion/improvement is a really important part
> > of an open source community, and making decisions about contributions
> > more visible would help it a lot.
> >
> > On another side of the same coin -
> > There are a few of us (Lately - Mike R., Lex, Leandro and myself,
> > sometimes other members too) that are maintaining and enhancing Celeste
> > over time. On one hand we'd like to tighten the release loop in order to
> > have a clear platform to work on, and on the other hand we know you
> > Harvesters are busy, so we prefer to give you less work, not more.
> >
> > We were thinking of starting to maintain Celeste on a repository, so we
> > can integrate changes into one official version independently of the
> > Harvesting process. This would give us and Celeste users a faster
> > evolving package, and we hope you will find it easier to simply take our
> > integrated changes from time to time, and update the image accordingly.
> >
> > Does this sound reasonable, am I missing something, or do you have other
> > ideas?
> 
> This sounds like a good idea to me.  (I purposely skipped looking at any Celeste-related fixes myself, partly because I don't know much about Celeste, but also because I knew that there were probably others working on maintaining it...)  We can work on coordinating this.
> 
> - Doug Way
>   dway at riskmetrics.com




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list