Squeak Stewards (Was: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Takingcontrolof parts of Squeak )

Stephane Ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sat Feb 22 08:43:59 UTC 2003

Hi daniel

Andreas makes me laugh a lot by saying that sometimes I fall on the 
keyboard. I think that this is right.
> About diplomacy, imperfect English is not a capital crime. Besides, I
> think the facts that the mail was sent to a small forum initially, and
> that it was sent by you - Roel - of all people, show a good effort for
> tact (Sorry Stef ;-).

Thanks for noting his effort. I'm bad at slow communication medium, so 
I let roel
do the work.

> Before I refer to the SCG's idea of taking care of the "kernel", I'd
> like to say we especially will need people able and willing to take
> stewardship of the packages we'll be removing from the image. This is
> because such packages will no longer be part of the Harvesting process.


> About the SCG and the kernel - I think you're definitely capable of
> taking care of it, and a well documented tested and maintained kernel
> would be a real asset for Squeak. About the policies you propose -
> * I agree people should run available tests before reporting a bug.
> * I agree there should be a clear boundary. We should consider using a
> DVS module for it, (which supports class extensions), assuming that
> we're not losing valuable method category information.
> * I agree that the steward should have effective control of his domain.
> This means veto power over changes, as you mention, and also an
> expectation of having his changes accepted within reasonable time.

I would say StewardS for big important packages could have a veto.

> Specifically for things that remain part of the image, and specifically
> something as important as the kernel, we'll probably need something 
> more
> like consuls walking together with whoever's Guiding at the time. I 
> also
> agree with Tim's comments, that someone taking this role needs to be
> extra careful about their own changes and involve other people in
> reviewing them.

Oh yessssssssssss.
> * I agree that patches should be tested before submitting to the
> steward.
> * I'd also agree that the steward has to accept or reject, adding that 
> a
> reason for rejecting is also needed.
> * About the part about bug fixes - I agree that the most reasonable way
> to get a bug report is to get a failing test. However, using tests is
> not so common among Squeakers. And even if it were, we don't want to
> scare beginners out of submitting bug reports. So some active guidance
> would need to complement guidelines (not strict rules) in order to make
> this change effective, but not too painful.

Another point I think that we should have test that document that 
certain class, methods have been deprecated, do avoid having other 
methods popping up back in the system without warning.
> Before we just ahead of ourselves, what do other people think?
> Daniel
Prof. Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE (ducasse at iam.unibe.ch) 
  "if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do
  different? ... especially if, by doing something different, today
  might not be your last day on earth" Calvin&Hobbes

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list