Am 12.08.2004 um 08:32 schrieb Doug Way:
>
> Proposal #1:
> - Have two update streams, "unstable" and "testing".  Serious problems 
> can be fixed in the "unstable" stream before they reach the 
> more-widely-used "testing" stream.
> - The updates from the unstable stream will be moved over to the 
> testing stream periodically, when things are stable.
>
> Proposal #2:
> - Have one update stream as we do now.
> - Anyone committing (broadcasting) to the update stream has to run 
> SUnit tests. (which take a couple minutes).

> Which proposal is the Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work?  You 
> could make a case for either one.  They're really a lot closer to each 
> other than they are to the current process, anyway... either way, 
> changes will be appearing in the update stream much more quickly.  
> Proposal #2 actually has the fastest turnaround to the main update 
> stream.
>
> Any feedback from Marcus and others who haven't commented on this 
> latest thread?
>

Sorry for not answering... It seems to be that I kind of avoid any of 
those discussions as soon as the threads grows realy large and people
start to write multiple-page responses.

So what is important is that we *do* something. And that should be the 
simplest thing. I just read Daniels mail (some 5 Points, comments about
automated test server, merging of tools and so on). For what the 
problem is, that's too complicated. We can have that, it would be cool. 
But we should
not wait till these tools are done. We want to do something *now*.

What I want is just a tiny improvement over the current process. i 
don't want to have anything perfect. We can work on that later. So I 
want
to have

  -> Bugs moved out of BFAV into Mantis. BFAV does nothing for bugs, so 
this is a no-brainer.
       If Mantis *replaces* BFAV as a patch-screening tools is a 
completely other question, and we can defer any discussion about that.

  -> The approved items should show up in the update stream faster.

  -> Development should be more accessible for those who do a lot.

We don't need to adress everything in one big step. So we should for 
now just focus on the Bugs and faster broadcast of approved upates
Without having to wait for any great tools to be ready.

I actualy like the two-update stream proposal best... so just allow all 
harvesters to directly publish to that stream. The nice thing is that 
we
have a saveguard without relaying on tools or test (which don't have 
enoug coverage, IMHO).

But I'm even fine with trying the one-update-stream idea. But we 
shouldn't walk into the tool trap and require elaborate tools that then 
have
to be developed. Maybe this could be a two-step process: First do it 
the human way with two update streams, and as soon as the tools are
there move to one stream.

     Marcus