Bug tracking policy (was Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Trunk now Toolbuilderized)

Michael Haupt mhaupt at gmail.com
Fri Aug 14 13:21:59 UTC 2009


Hi Keith,

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Keith Hodges<keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> As for reporting, I'd strongly opt for not having to report (and
>> attach a changeset) every little thing I can immediately fix. Why
>> should the fix be stored in two different places: the trunk, and
>> Mantis? It's waste.
>>
> Putting fixes into trunk is a waste I agree, so what do we need the
> trunk for again?

I presume you intentionally mistook me there. :-)

> Core developers should be working on particular innovations, bounded
> within certain packages and with documentation and deliverables. They
> should not be let loose on the image indescriminately.

I don't think this is the case. Apart from that, getting the image "in
shape" (in the form of a release, for instance) sounds like core
developer responsibility to me. This cannot be done in isolated
packages; it affects many of them.

>> This morning I removed an obsolete test case from the trunk, along
>> with a method. This was not really a bug, it just was one of the
>> reasons that the bar would not go green, but in no way an indicator
>> for some fault in the code in the image as such. I feel awkward when I
>> read I should have reported *this* as a *bug*.
>>
> It depends on what your test was for. Tests should be managed externally
> to the image anyway, and integrated for test candidates

This I agree with; and the tests repository - as kept separate from
the trunk - is a step in that direction, right?

BTW the test I removed was not mine. It was included in 2007 and
addressed the closure code that existed at the time. It was forgotten
to remove it when Eliot's closure code came in.

Best,

Michael



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list