On 19 mai 06, at 23:36, Bryce Kampjes wrote:

> Cees De Groot writes:
>> On 5/19/06, stAiphane ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>>> I would dream to remove a lot of old code, but was always afraid to
>>> break too much stuff.
>>>
>> That's a valid fourth option, of course.
>
> A fifth option would be to move in smaller steps with a higher quality
> level. If all tests were always passing then it would be easier to
> assess changes and there would be a greater incentive to write tests.
>
> Having a higher quality bar would make it more difficult to make
> large changes like internationalisation and Traits but might free
> up some energy to work on the process and the tool support.
>
> My personal suspicion is a few small tool enhancements including
> a dependency mechanism for SqueakMap would provide a large benefit.
> It's possible that the process tried for 3.9 can be made to work with
> some investment in tools. I'm slightly afraid that we'll forever chase
> a perfect process and fail to get any process working well.

I agree. We still would like to have all the tests green in 3.9

Stef



>
> However, any serious plan for 3.10 or 4.0 whichever one is next would
> need a few people to volunteer to lead the effort. As always, it's
> those who do the work who get to decide what gets done. Discussion is
> valuable but not decisive.
>
> Bryce
> P.S. I'm away from the internet for the next week on holiday.
>