A process proposal for 3.10

Pavel Krivanek squeak1 at continentalbrno.cz
Mon Oct 16 09:19:56 UTC 2006

On 10/16/06, Lukas Renggli <renggli at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This proposal is based on two points:
> > - decentralization of development
> > - fixed duration of iterations ("timeboxing")
> Sounds like a good proposal, however I see a couple of problems that
> you don't adress:
> - How to manage the code and the changes? Most changes related to
> Compiler, CompiledMethod, Behavior, Traits, etc. cannot be loaded
> using Monticello.
> - What to do with code that is not properly packaged yet? How to pass
> code over to another package?
> - How to manage fixes that go across multiple packages?
> - What to do with essential packages that do not have a maintainer?
> Kernel, Collection, ...
> - What to do with essential packages that have a maintainer but that
> do not get maintained? No insults, therefor no examples ...
> Cheers,
> Lukas

Very good notes. This problems are described in the thread with Stef's
postmortem analysis

Without solution of this problems the release team will have to do
much more than only collect fixes from package maintainers and the
releasing will be as painful as in case of version 3.9.

Maybe we have to create new packaging system and the basic
infrastructure like test server and then plan next version.

-- Pavel

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list