On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, keith wrote:

>
>>> 
>>> I don't insist that my way will be better.
>> 
>> 
>> Come on now, the majority of what you write is to insist that your way will 
>> be better.
>
> Not at all, I have two main points... 1) the board has no constitution, and 
> 2) trunk is the worst possible process you could have chosen, because
>
> a) it isn't a process it is an excuse to group-hack a monolithic image
> b) the philosophy behind trunk is the opposite of where we want to go, 
> monolithic vs support all forks with a kernel you can build on.

Parts of the "kernel" can be common, but common patches above that level 
will hardly exist.

> c) moving targets are the worst possible scenario.

You just can't accept that the mcms are actually mini-releases.

> d) it uses tools that are too high level.

Hah.

> e) it is release a year rather then release a month

Erm no.

> f) it relies on an elite to manage it

Combine this with a) and you'll find that Squeak is being developed by 
a group of elite hackers. Sounds impressive. ;)

> g) it closes out people who cant change things without breaking it.

>From one point of view:
This is the best feature. It allowed us to deploy several Trunk images. We 
ported all but two of our apps to Trunk images and we can easily update 
them - even on-the-fly - to have the lastest fixes and features.

>From another:
You're wrong. If you can't integrate your changes, you can add it to the 
Inbox, or just send the changesets and someone will do the integration if 
it turns out to be useful.

>
> You keep using trunk, and you close me out.

No, you're closing yourself out, because you don't want to use it.

>
> So far there has been one useful contributor to trunk, and that was when 
> Torsten posted a changeset to this list, and I used it.

You could create changesets from the mczs based on the mcms, but I think 
you simply don't want to do that.


Levente

>
> The fact that I can knock up a brand new process in less than a week which is 
> better than trunk, simply shows how bad it is.
>
> regards
>
> Keith
>