Hi,
	As a person who has sent a fix for a still current bug twice, and didn't
receive a comment in either oportunity (at least stating that my fix was
wrong or sucked) I have something to say.

	I think that BFAV should priorize the oldest items by default. And also,
though it might have changed by now, when I used the BFAV to submit these
fixes I saw that BFAV only downloaded the latest 500 entries in the Archive,
so you already have a timeout filter there, and I think that's a bad thing.

	If the timeout filter idea persist, I suggest that an automatic email
notifying the fix's author should be the polite thing to do.

disclaimer: I am a little rough with my english, so if my message sounded a
little harsh please forgive me. I am not criticizing just only giving my 2
cents

Regards
Hernán

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org]En nombre de
> Daniel Vainsencher
> Enviado el: Jueves, 02 de Octubre de 2003 10:07
> Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Asunto: Re: Idea: "Timeout" submissions?
>
>
> Seems to me we could have the same effect with less work by having a
> "time window filter" in the BFAV that shows only the last years posts.
> That would make it easy both to do the regular harvesting/reviewing, but
> also to go fishing for oldies.
>
> What would change in essence is only that we'd be saying that the
> harvester generally look only at the stuff that either recent or
> recently touched. Which I think would reasonable...
>
> Daniel
>
> Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am cleaning up the Bugfix-Archive a little, so that we actually have a
> > chance to look at the stuff that's there.
> >
> > While doing this I had an idea, and it would be interesting to know
> > if this would be of some value.
> >
> > Up to now we just stuff all bugs into the archive, and there it
> > is kept until the case is either [closed] or [approved]. Closing
> > can happen due to a lot of different causes (rejected, allready
> > included, superseded, not for the image, and so on).
> >
> > Nevertheless we have acumulated a *huge* backlog of Fixes and
> > Enhancements that nobody has looked at till now.
> >
> > I would like to have a clearly defined strategy how to handle
> > this. And my Idea would be that *every* item, regardless of how
> > cool or important it is, gets closed after 6 Months "automatically".
> > This actually don't need to be really automatic: Just if a harvester
> > happens to see a an old item in BFAV he either harvests it or just
> > sends a [closed] message.
> >
> > The idea is that *really* important changes will be re-submitted by
> > someone (the author, a user, just someone who cares about it). The
> > re-submitted fix will have to be tested and adjusted for the latest
> > development-image.
> >
> > So this scheme will habe a lot of good effects:
> >
> > 1) remove clutter from the Archive
> > 2) We have a third way to decide about changes: "yes" "no" and
> >    "nobody cares, thus: no".
> > 3) The image is a moving target. Especially refactorings tend
> >    to change lots of methods, and old fixes rot. This way we
> >    make sure that we only have to harvest changes that are
> >    reasonably old.
> > 4) Maybe this will help to bring some urgency into harvesting
> >    "I need to get this in or it will be lost".
> >
> > Any negative effects?
> >
> >     Marcus
> >
> >
> > --
> > Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de  -- Squeak! http://squeak.de