Challenges -- Who's havesting fixes.
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Wed May 24 10:20:30 UTC 2006
A good soul pointed to me my own email :)
No, you didn't dream, it was
But of course everybody could have missed it like me :)
What a zombie am I...
On 24 mai 06, at 09:42, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Hi Stef -
> First, I'm not sure what you mean by "bashing". Really, if I bash
> something or someone it looks usually quite different from what I
> wrote. I would even go as far and claim that what I wrote is
> something that you could probably relate to if you were trying to
> do some package maintenance independent from the image maintenance.
> But since you asked let's stay calm and look at a few things: For
> one thing, I have not seen any message asking about new versions
> recently; the last time I saw a message where you asked for it
> January/099843.html) I responded quite explicitly pointing to the
> latest versions (http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-
> dev/2006-January/099871.html) If there has been anything in the
> meantime please point me to it.
> Second, let's look at Mantis. For the issues reported in the
> categories of packages that I maintain there is no indication that
> they have any relations to the changes that happened downstream,
> which indeed leads me to believe that, yes, I am the only person
> harvesting these packages, dealing with the reported bugs and fixes
> (the other reason is that I would expect anyone interested in
> helping with it to contact me to get access to the upstream
> repositories which I'd be happy to grant but which hasn't happened
> yet). And really, there is nothing wrong with that - I said I'd
> deal with the issues and I am as you can see if you look at Mantis
> and the issues that were resolved since I said I'd do it.
> [BTW, for those not following that process almost all of the fixes
> have a discussion thread attached to it which goes to show that I
> typically don't just take the fixes but rather go over them
> carefully discuss the necessary details and integrate them
> afterwards (or reject them; that happens as well) - a process which
> takes quite a bit of time and care and which makes it particularly
> frustrating to deal with downstream changes that just "show up" in
> an image. I also try to keep the packages in sync between the
> various versions that I use (Squeak, Tweak, Tinlizzie, Croquet) and
> that's even harder].
> Third, when I was looking at the latest 3.9, I found that all but a
> single package that I am involved in with maintenance one way or
> another (Balloon, Compression, FFI, Flash, Graphics, ToolBuilder,
> TrueType; the single exception being the GraphicsTests package)
> have downstream modifications that are not in the upstream
> repositories. Now, I can understand why this is *sometimes*
> necessary, but when I start looking at the changes in detail then I
> found that many of them aren't required by other changes (which is
> the main reason why I could see that they had to be included
> downstream) and that most of these changes really should have been
> done upstream (if at all - they really should be subject to the
> same review process that I am running for changes reported at
> Mantis because otherwise they have a really unfair advantage). And
> I can't for the heck of it find even a single Mantis report at all
> for any of these changes (and again, if there are, please point me
> to it) or even an attempt to communicate about these changes (e.g.,
> no emails that I could find talking about these changes either) -
> they just "appeared" in the image at some point (and again if there
> is a place where these things are discussed please point me to it).
> All in all, I believe this entitles me to say that for me it's
> frustrating to see these downstream changes that are done outside
> of the currently defined processes, which I believe include that
> the responsibilities for harvesting done in a package lie with the
> package maintainer not with the downstream image maintainer and
> that changes should generally be documented at mantis. And if I'm
> wrong about this, I'd really like a clarification to understand
> what exactly the role of a maintainer is and what is expect of this
> role. Because the way it is right now it *is* frustrating to do
> package maintenance and all your yelling and screaming won't really
> change that.
> - Andreas
> stéphane ducasse wrote:
>> you mean you are harvesting your packages but nobody else!
>> Now I asked several time to get some new version of the maintained
>> packages and I got
>> no answer so far.
>> So please do not bash us if we harvested a change that was for
>> your package.
>> I do not like this kind of game!
>> On 24 mai 06, at 07:54, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>> Peace Jerome wrote:
>>>>>> All I wanted was an official answer to the question
>>>>>> "Who's havesting fixes."
>>>>> so far me and (marcus but he stopped).
>>>> Ok. Thank you for the direct answer. (And for taking
>>>> the responsibily.)
>>> Actually, this is only partially correct. Fixes that belong to
>>> packages are harvested by the package maintainers. It is quite
>>> frustrating for a package maintainer to see downstream
>>> modifications magically appear in some image without even knowing
>>> about them.
>>> - Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev