How to improve Squeak
Marcus Denker
denker at iam.unibe.ch
Sun Jul 11 21:50:58 UTC 2004
Am 11.07.2004 um 22:21 schrieb Brad Fuller:
>
> Has a proposal been put forth in the past to improve this process? I
> for one
> would like to see this tighter. Perhaps this is what Ramiro was
> pointing out
> in his "Magma" email.
>
>
I don't think it makes sense to thighten the process at this point. I
am aware that
"shit happens" with the current process.
One simple example: I am the one to blame to have accepted the
"asPlural" changeset.
So, yes, dumb idea to approve that. Something like that happens.
But what's the alternative? Even with the "only one harvester" rule, we
don't manage to do *anything*
at all. Just look at BFAV: The amount of unreviewed stuff is growing.
If we now require a real formal
process beyond what we have now, I fear that nothing will happen. (I
actually would call the current
state of progress "nothing" already).
To come back to the example: Don't forget that we strike for a "fast
moving agile" process. So even
with me doing the wrong thing (approving somthing that should not be
approved), the right thing
nevertheless will happen in the long run, as it did with the asPlural
stuff.
So to sum up: I don't think that making the process more heavy-wheigt
will be the solution.
Marcus
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|