Marcus Denker wrote:

> 
> Am 04.08.2004 um 17:38 schrieb lex at cc.gatech.edu:
> 
>>
>>> You can clearly see that I did too much harvesting last week. It was no
>>> example
>>> of burocracy, just my fault.
>>
>>
>> Just to be clear, I actually think you did a fantastic job considering
>> what you were up against.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> An I should stress that I, too, think we need to improve the "process". 
> (Even
> the name is wrong: It suggests non-fun burocracy).
> 
> One thing we should try is to move the bugs out of BFAV: They are not 
> dealt with
> in the harvesting process.
> 
> Some non-public Squeak projects have used Mantis with some success. So 
> we should
> try to use Mantis for Bug-tracking and BFAV for managing 
> reviews/harvesting only.
> 

We already talk offline about the use of a BTS like Mantis with some of 
you. Can we try to make an experiment for example to manage the bugs in 
the stable 3.7 ? My vision is to have something like the way the linux 
kernel dev work : a very conservative stable version with a frozen API 
and only bug fixes, and an unstable version managed with the BFAV process.

Maybe, we can also have a maintainer for the stable version like Marcelo 
Tosatti is the Linux kernel 2.4 maintainer. We could have several stable 
release (3.7.1, 3.7.2, ...) at fixed time, for example every two or 
three months.


--                                                         oooo
Serge Stinckwich                                         OOOOOOOO
Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD               OOESUGOO
http://purl.org/net/SergeStinckwich                       oooooo
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]   \  /
                                                             ##