marcus

I will spent some evenings going from the very beginning and chcking 
what should be closed and what could be rescue. If we are several doing 
that after a month or two BFAV will be clean.
Then we stop around jan 2002.


Stef


On 8 janv. 04, at 09:50, Marcus Denker wrote:

>
> Am 08.01.2004 um 03:00 schrieb Julian Fitzell:
>
>> Yes!
>>
>> The most depressing thing about reviewing fixes is that you know you 
>> aren't going to make a dent.  And the most depressing thing about 
>> submitting fixes is that you know they may well get lost in all the 
>> volume.  If we could keep the list to 20-50 items then we would be 
>> far more likely to fire up BFAV and try to bring the list back down 
>> to 0.
>>
>> Bugs and fixes that old either:
>>
>> - won't be relevant anymore; or
>> - won't work in the new image anyway; or
>> - will be posted in an incorrect format (according to your 
>> examination)
>>
>> I think there's so much chaffe in there, that we are more than 
>> justified in forcibly drafting the authors in to help separate the 
>> wheat.  And I'm personally willing to risk missing a few gems if the 
>> trade off is that the gems we all create in the future get integrated 
>> faster.
>>
>
> Yes, I think we should close all really old submissions. Let's pick 
> some date and just do it. We should
>    -> sent a mail to the author and squeak-dev with an explanation
>    -> close the submission in BFAV
>
> We should start with the oldest, and gradually move forward. Not too 
> many at once, we need to have
> everyone have a chance to look at the closed items.
>
> I even vote for not defining a fixed date, but simply define that 
> everything older than one
> year gets this special timeout treatment.
>
> I suggested this some time ago, and this was apposed. But those who 
> argued against it didn't do
> anything else than talking: There was not a single review of pre 2003 
> submissions besides a handfull
> that I did myself!
>
>           Marcus
>
>
> --
> Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de
>
>