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
|