Mantis Experiment a Failure? Are we ready yet to move on? (was Re: [BUGFIX] SqueakMap is broken in 3.10)

Ken Causey ken at
Mon Nov 5 21:46:34 UTC 2007

I'll just go ahead and preface this with my own claims of 'tiredness' or
at least frustration.

First the initial report was sent to the mailing list with something
resembling the old scheme of bug/fix reporting (although not quite
matching) rather than being posted to .  I
sighed deeply but decided to simply ignore it.

Matthew kindly tried to move things in that direction, but with little
apparent success.

Now I notice that you (Goran) don't once mention below the option of
adding a report on Mantis under the SqueakMap category.

It has now been three years since we started with Mantis and deprecated
the old report to list method.  And yet new reports still occasionally
appear on the list.

Yes, it's true that this is still the functionality that appears in the
image.  I'll accept that as the primary reason new reports continue to
appear on the list.

All I can say is "Is anyone itching enough yet to actually build a
system we will use?"  I think it's pretty clear by now that Mantis does
not represent such a system.  I'll be the first to admit that Mantis
doesn't cause me to want to scratch very much and so I have no
confidence that I can define a system that will be accepted.

Too be more than a little blunt, it's time for all of us to put up or
shut up.  A few of us have complained about Mantis in the past.  I'm not
going to name names but I think it's time for those who don't feel like
Mantis is a workable solution to start seriously thinking about the
shape of a significantly more appropriate solution.


On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 22:22 +0200, goran at wrote:
> Yeah, I noticed this too - and fixed it too - and ended up forgetting I
> did it. :)
> Let me see - in a perfect world (my perfect world) - this email (yours)
> would more or less be sent to me since I am a co-maintainer of
> VersionNumber on SM (using some nice mapping between PI and SM etc that
> actually is in place but not in use) and I would put the fix in and
> publish a new version of that darn package (which btw is a quite poor
> class all in all, when you look really, really close you realize that
> you can only branch ONCE per version number, ouch!!).
> Eh, ok, so I just tried and... hmmph. Ok, so VersionNumber is an old .st
> file on SM. I made a new release of that. But... hmmm, so I notice two
> methods on VersionNumber are class extensions from SMBase - which could
> be moved into VersionNumber now that I am messing with it (haven't done
> that earlier).
>   (ok, so I tried using an old 3.8-6665 image and did "SMSqueakMap
> bootStrap" in it and then upgrade all - seems to end up fine with the
> fix in place)
> But SMBase... has diverted off in 3.10 with changes that I am fairly
> sure are not backwards compatible with 3.8 (ChangeSorter vs
> ChangeOrganizer).
> Ok, I give up there. I can't say I understand how SM is supposed to be
> maintained anymore - feel free to enlighten me. In fact - feel free to
> explain to us all how the new process/model for bug fixing, maintenance,
> packages etc is meant to work (IIRC that was the purpose of 3.10).
> And no, not being sarcastic - possibly a bit tired.
> regards, Gran
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list