On the state of Squeak bug reporting (was: Re: [squeak-dev] "find
mykdavies+squeak at gmail.com
Fri Mar 12 20:20:04 UTC 2010
I asked on squeak-dev for the easiest way to clearly indicate that a small
piece of code was under the MIT Licence, and one suggestion was to post it
I just tried posting my code as a feature (now at
http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=7478) and at no stage was I asked to
confirm that my code would be assumed to be under the MIT licence, so that
doesn't seem to help. I created a new account to see if the condition was
stated in the confirmation email, and also checked the online documents, but
nothing there either.
So my first question is, how do we ensure that everyone understands that
code posted to bugs.squeak.org in the past, or from now on, is under the MIT
licence? Is it possible to add a link to
http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ to the page footer, the registration
confirmation email or the login page?
I also noticed that this appears to have been the first activity on
bugs.squeak.org this year. So a question for squeak-dev readers: What is the
role of bugs.squeak.org in the development process, in particular is the
following text from the website still an accurate statement?
"We currently use Mantis <http://bugs.impara.de/> for issue tracking, both
for Squeak itself and other Squeak projects."
And on the use of the term "Mantis", on the Community page I find that the
Mantis link points to bugs.impara.de, while the link in the Links section is
correct, but the title doesn't mention Mantis.
WEBTEAM: Could you please update the link on the Community page to correctly
point to our bug reporting site at http://bugs.squeak.org? I'd suggest that
the text of the link both there and in the Links section should also be "
bugs.squeak.org" for clarity and consistency.
Okay, rant over now :-).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev