Fix harvesting party (was: Re: Idea: "Timeout" submissions?)

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Thu Oct 2 15:58:43 UTC 2003


I really like this idea. I think the most important thing would be to
introduce as many people as possible to the harvesting process and
machinary, so that many people get the hang of testing and reviewing
stuff.

How about setting a weekend during which we concentrate energies on
this? if enough people are interested, we can make sure some support is
available, for example harvesters could be available by IRC (taking
turns or something) for questions, and we could prepare a recent image
with some relevant tools pre-loaded.

Who would be interested?

Daniel

Karl Ramberg <karl.ramberg at chello.se> wrote:
> I think we should have a massive bug fixing "party" 
> and see how long it would take to go through 
> the list of standing bug and fixes.
> If we could get 20-30 people going at this for a few
> hours it would give some impressive results, and the list would
> dwindle.
> I would love to contribute, but I cant get the darn 
> BFAV to run on my machine ;-)
> 
> Karl
> 
> Hernan Tylim wrote:
> > 
> > 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



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list