Aggregated removal script for 3.6
Doug Way
dway at riskmetrics.com
Fri May 2 06:13:23 UTC 2003
(Sorry folks, I've been busy the last few days and am now just catching
up with the list...)
On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 08:30 AM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> diegogomezdeck at consultar.com wrote:
>> What about to make a "oficial" call to help?
>>
>> I think a lot of us are able to work in this area and I never know
>> the "door is open".
>
> You're right, I think we should, though I at least would not do it
> *right now*. I think we should have a somewhat clearer idea of how the
> whole process should work (which will come naturally from giving it a
> little time, though we might be a little slower than one might desire
> during this time) and then we'll widen the circle.
Probably a good idea. Although if we do that, I'd almost be tempted to
go with the less harvesting-intensive approach of adding all of the
removals at once.
On the other hand, adding them one at a time might work if we have a
well-defined process... I wouldn't want to coordinate incorporating
each one myself one at a time, on an ad-hoc basis, that sounds like a
lot of work. Hm, also, if we do one at a time, and make sure each one
is tested before adding the next, even allowing only 3 days between
adding each removal, that would mean it would be 30+ days before we
progress to KCP/MCP/other stuff in the 3.6 plan, which is quite a while.
I would suggest if we try adding them one at a time, we use the regular
Harvesting Process (defined on the swiki at
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3152 ). Someone could post them all
to the list, people could comment that the removals (and perhaps the
re-added packages) work correctly, they'd get approved & then
incorporated. They'd probably end up getting incorporated a few at a
time, depending on when they were approved. (We might still have a
harvesting bottleneck, although if enough people comment that the
removals/additions work, the harvesting should be easy.) We could set
an arbitrary goal of trying to get them done within a couple of weeks
or so.
Or, the other strategy is to just incorporate all 10 removals right
now, and it's up to the package maintainers to make sure the re-added
packages work properly and resolve conflicts with other packages.
Also, we'd have to deal with any problems caused by the 10 removals,
but those should less of a problem. (at least for these early "easy"
removals)
I think I'm still leaning toward the "remove all 10 right now" strategy
since the removals have been out on SqueakMap for awhile now. We could
discuss a bit more, but let's decide on a strategy in the next day or
two.
(I guess the Test packages are not yet available for each package
addition, which is another issue. We should probably make it a
requirement that "Squeak Official" packages must have a matching Test
package, even if it's just a simple test, along the lines of what
Marcus suggested in that April 15th message. Also, we could declare
Marcus to be the "testing" Volunteer, so perhaps he would be
responsible/empowered to bug the package owners to add the appropriate
Test packages, and provide guidance when needed...? :-) )
- Doug Way
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|