On Tuesday 09 July 2002 11:44 am, Peter Schuller wrote:

> I may very well be wrong, but I believe that if there is a
> mechanism in place in the Squeak release process that is able to
> "handle" a steady stream of mini-patches from various people
> (meaning, good ones get committed), developers would be more
> inclined to submit such patches because they know that if they do a
> good job, it will most likely be committed. The two examples above
> probably fit into this picture.
>
>
> If this is correct, then such a mechanism might go a long way
> towards increasing the inflow of enhancements to Squeak. The
> question is what exactly this "mechanism" is.
>
>
> My suggestion, then, is for a form of community review process
> (there may be serious flaws in this suggesting, but that's why I'm
> posting it, so that people can criticize). Suppose there was an
> automated system that gobbles up changes (perhaps built upon the
> current system that scans the ML), puts them in a database, and
> gives the community a chance to react to them - perhaps voting
> yes/no/abstain on weather or not it should go into the image, and
> optionally provide comments.

Have you seen:
http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/45

This details the current practice. Like many things in open source 
software, it's a volunteer effort.

I'm sure your help would be welcome (though I can't speak for the 
Harvesters).

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE