[squeak-dev] Re: Discussing commit models (Re: Re: Compatibility (was some other subject...))

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Mon Jun 29 17:27:10 UTC 2009


Göran Krampe wrote:
> Pharo has a world writable MC inbox. And they have "sworn" to react 
> quickly and review incoming stuff. That is of course a classical 
> "harvesting" setup, and we have had trouble with such a bottleneck 
> earlier - so I am not sure I advocate it, but if you have man power to 
> do the integration, it works.

This may sound a bit cynical in the context of what you were originally 
writing, but since we were just complaining about the reduced number of 
contributions perhaps that makes the model more feasible again?

> Some of us believe that a simple "commit bit" might be a way forward, 
> meaning that if we (whoever "we" is) decide to trust a developer we 
> simply give that developer the right to commit straight to the trunk. No 
> review, no harvester, no inbox. It is trunk after all, sure, it can 
> break, so what? That is what unit tests and stable/unstable is for.

I would certainly be willing to give that a try. How about something 
like using source.squeakfoundation.org with the board being admins for 
the project and people who are granted commit rights get dev status?

> But the fact remains, it must be TRIVIALLY easy to commit a quick fix. 
> Most quick fixes come about when someone is busy, busy doing work - and 
> if it isn't easy to "fire off" a fix, then it will not be done because 
> the work comes first.

I completely agree. I'm in the very same situation often enough.

Cheers,
   - Andreas




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list