open process issues (was: Roadmap proposal for 3.10/4.0)

Marcus Denker denker at
Tue Oct 17 21:43:46 UTC 2006

> For small changes, we still seem to be operating in a vacuum.  I am
> unmotivated to fix bugs in core Squeak and in the Unix port, because
> in both cases the fixes are often ignored.  SharedQueue, one of our
> fundamental synchronization constructs, has been broken for over a
> year now, despite a fix being available [4].  Should I ever again blow
> away a Saturday like that?  Nobody likes being a sucker who fights
> harder for something than its own management.

I added this improved SharedQueue as SharedQueue2 to 3.9 very early:

| MarcusDenker  10-07-05 18:09  in 3.9 for further testing

Sadly, nobody tested it. The next entry on mantis is yours from end  
of september
(we where past gamma then, so we can't do this change):

| lexspoon  09-28-06 10:47
| It has been a year, now, and no problems have come to light. We  
should start migrating to this.
|  All it requires is replacing SharedQueue by SharedQueue2.

So I don't see how it is my fault to not have added this: It is a  
grave change, breaking
the image on that level is far from fun, so this is not a fix to be  
added and then tested
("let's see if it works"). It needs at least some testing by someone  
before that.

If somebody would have tested it, I would have added it to 3.9a.

Even your note, if you would have posted that half a year earlier,  
this change
would be in 3.9. Or you could have written a mail. *something*.  

What I think as strange is that people critize so hard for the  
percived fact that
there was a bottleneck in getting things accepted in 3.9. I don't  
think that there
was a too big one, compared to earlier release cycles. There was a  
in reviewing and testing. And with that, everybody could have helped.  
And some
people did.

In 3.9a, we managed to get mantis down to 275 entries, closing over 800.
That's *a lot*. And two month ago, I would have bet that if people  
would evaluate
the negative aspects of 3.9a, they would have said something like a)  
"this guy adds
every crap", not "b) there is a bottleneck, nothing got accepted".  
And I am actually even
now convenced that a) actually is kind of more true than b).


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list