open process issues (was: Roadmap proposal for 3.10/4.0)
lex at cc.gatech.edu
Wed Oct 25 20:02:50 UTC 2006
Marcus Denker <denker at iam.unibe.ch> writes:
> In this case it was *only* missing this last "please add this, I
> tested it in 3.9a, it works".
Right, sure. To be clear, I actually was not criticizing your and
whoever else's individual decisions in this case. You've obviously
done a huge amount of work for Squeak, and the parts I know about are
very well done.
I am simply saying that the level of process and testing required is
stiffling out some changes. If you do not have months to campaign and
write tests and followup with bug-tracking discussions, it is hard to
get a patch into Squeak. In a word, for good or for ill, Squeak is
very conservative these days, at least with its core image.
More information about the Squeak-dev