ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sun Mar 19 08:06:15 UTC 2006
I would have not expected something more positive from you.
On 18 mars 06, at 10:47, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Hi Stef -
> I hope you're not too disappointed but personally I don't think
> that this list is particularly well suited for applying bounties.
> Most of the goals seem way to unspecific ("improving", "fixing",
> "making X better" mean little without saying what to improve, fix,
> or make better) and some of the tasks seem quite large and/or
> complex. But feel free to give it a shot, your opinion is as good
> as mine (or perhaps better) in this area. I'm actually kinda
> curious myself what (if anything ;-) might happen.
> - Andreas
> stéphane ducasse wrote:
>> On 18 mars 06, at 01:28, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>> Personally, I think bounties work best if they are used in the
>>> context of an existing support network. For example, I would
>>> think that a bounty for, say, "making loading in Monticello
>>> faster" might work because there is a community of MC developers/
>>> users out there, it's a small, tangible (and easy to measure)
>>> improvement and it's (most importantly) not in the critical path
>>> of anyone (if it doesn't get done, so what).
>> Here is a list of item
>> improving squeaksource
>> fixing scriptloading
>> making MC loading faster and been better
>> having a better OB faster integrated RB
>> fixing the weakreference
>> fixing the refresh
>> curving MVC
>> cleaning the image to use toolbuilder
>> are the kind of items we would like to see fixed.
>> So this would work.
More information about the Squeak-dev