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

David T. Lewis lewis at
Wed Oct 18 02:03:16 UTC 2006

On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
> 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 bottleneck in reviewing and testing. And with that, everybody
> could have helped. And some people did.


I did a very small amount of helping here, so let me offer my feedback.
For me, it was difficult to review changes and test things because this
often required downloading a complete new version of an image. This is
time consuming and not much fun, so I did not do it very often.

The solution is simple. Use a release stream with change sets just like
SqC did. That makes it easy and *enjoyable* to keep a testing image
that is up to date with the release stream, and that contains a complete
record of all the things that have been changed in the recent development
process. I can see what changes occurred in what change sets, and when
they were applied. I can read the preambles to get an explanation of
why they are there. Last but not least, I can be reasonably confident
that the author initials are those of the actual author.

> In 3.9a, we managed to get mantis down to 275 entries, closing over 800.
> That's *a lot*.

Excellent. Well done indeed!


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list