Reviewing fixes/enhancements (was Re: [squeak-dev] [Election]
Nomination period ends in 3 days!)
ken at kencausey.com
Sat Feb 21 19:50:36 UTC 2009
> What i really want to point out, that release
> process were not fair to others, when there only single person
> deciding whether put fix/feature into release or not.
I have to disagree with you here, although I can see how this is
perceived and comes down as always to a communication break down. The
fixes applied to each release did not generally come from out of thin
air. They originated as reports on bugs.squeak.org, generally from
someone other than the harvester. So immediately you have the opinion
of at least one other person in support of harvesting the fix/enh. And
I think if you look through the list of issues harvested for 3.10 you
will find that in most cases weeks or even months went by when everyone
had an opportunity to review and comment on submitted fixes. In many
cases this did happen. I would really really like for it to happen
Of course mistakes were still made. I made more than a few myself. I
think you will even find issues where I made the report and harvested it
myself without any additional comment.
In support of 3.11 I have to say the situation is slightly better here
because Keith and I have worked together to come up with a solution that
clearly marks which issues are targeted for each release and the current
status. The initial impetus here was purely technical, a way for the
build system to automatically harvest issues. But it serves as well to
flag issues that concerned Squeakizens (Squeak citizens, yes I know I
should have resisted) should pay particular attention to.
may help clarify.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090221/67f70d76/attachment.pgp
More information about the Squeak-dev