One last try (was: RE: Convincing a harvester (was on SqF list))

Hans Nikolaus Beck HNBeck at t-online.de
Wed May 7 22:47:50 UTC 2003


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Am Mittwoch, 07.05.03 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Stephane Ducasse:

> Exact andreas. I understand your poing. I think that there is process 
> mechanism missing. With SqC this was implicit and now we should have 
> it open.

looking back to the huge amount of postings and therefore the many 
arguments, that one thing is not more clear as to begin: do we want a 
process mechanism ? Because a software development process is 
undividable bound to requirements and therefore bounded to the term 
"product".  In other words product and  a vision of what has to be is 
the same thing (for the software engineering).
So, if we want a process, this makes only sense if we want a more or 
less defined product, a vision of squeak. But who gives that vision ? 
The guides as they called here, the community, only the one for his 
modul that he writes ??? I think Andreas gives some answers in his 
post,  but nevertheless, what should be in future or what is the wish 
of the community to this point is not obviously. It is not a question 
for the who we do, but what we want (as the original name of the thread 
was...:-))

Greetings

Hans
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQE+uY0aX8NXna8434cRAuvcAJ9NBgE6cJS5477ZnkcvDun2UkFAgwCgr+0y
nT2joaYZ54kkBuXzhLFpmj0=
=3OxP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list