Hi peter

I think that you have to understand that in a community there is a 
question of trust and commitment. and both of them cannot be declared 
but the result of actions. So if you want to participate review
the changesets proposed.
Your change is on my stack I read it but I was so confused by the 
discussion that I could not get an idea myself.

Stef

On Dimanche, nov 2, 2003, at 22:36 Europe/Zurich, Peter van Rooijen 
wrote:

> From: "Marcus Denker" <marcus at ira.uka.de>
>> The Harvesting process as defined (over a year!!) ago is not working.
>>
>> So, personally I am really interested what people think about this.
>>
>> Especially valuable would be the input of those happily submitting
>> changesets, but not participating in the review process: How do you
>> think this can possibly work?
>
> I don't understand. Since the harvesting process was defined, I've 
> submitted
> one change set, and have reviewed none. How come this disparity? Isn't 
> the
> answer simple and clear? Everybody can submit change sets, only a few 
> people
> have been chosen to harvest.
>
>> "I don't have time". No. This wrong:
>> People have time to participate in elaborate huge dicussions on this
>> list, they have time to actually produce changesets and submitt them.
>
> I agree 100%. I have time. I would be happy and proud to help. Nobody 
> told
> me they wanted me to help. Is there somewhere I can sign up?
>
>> Time can't be the problem. "reviewing" a simple change does not take
>> that much time.
>
> Only the time to run the tests, and if they all fail, see if their
> assertions are correct, and if they are, install the changeset, see if 
> all
> the tests pass, and if they do, approve it. Indeed, it shouldn't take 
> more
> than 10 or 20 minutes even when there are 10 or 20 tests with 2 or 3
> assertions each.
>
>> So what's the problem? too complicated? Not worth
>> the effort?
>
> Like I said, I don't have a problem. When can I start?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>> Sometimes I think most people on the squeak-dev list
>> would be perfectly fine if we just declare Squeak to be finished:
>> Per definition, Smalltalk is the best language ever, so why change
>> anything? Just a round of bugfixed all 6 Months, that's it.
>>
>> Actually, I think we are in just this state allready for more than
>> 2 years.  Have you ever tried to explain somebody what's new in 3.6?
>> There is *nothing*. There was nothing new in 3.5. And not much in 3.4,
>> either. Squeak is dead.
>>
>>       Marcus
>
>