Clean up BFAV?

danielv at netvision.net.il danielv at netvision.net.il
Thu Jan 8 12:39:08 UTC 2004


I think we should close (in stages) everything that got reported before
the QA tags got established. The presence of those marks a line
(somewhat blurry) between hopeless and not.

Daniel Vainsencher

Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:50:06 +0100
> From: Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de>
> Subject: Re: Clean up BFAV?
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> reply-to: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> 
> 
> 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



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list