[squeak-dev] Inbox and Communication

Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r at gmail.com
Sat Apr 16 05:49:27 UTC 2011


You mean the MC package, not the SVN sources right? What's the convention?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Casey Ransberger <
> casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think most existing SCM solutions make this less painful with magic
>> branching/merging/digging goodness. MC doesn't support branches, so we use a
>> separate repository, which I think kind of sucks. I doubt we can fix that
>> easily, though.
>>
>
> Well, with VMMaker we're using an arguably dubious convention that supports
> branching Cog from the Interpreter in the same repository just fine.  So I'm
> not sure I agree.
>
>> Eliot
>
>
>> On Apr 15, 2011, at 2:12 PM, "David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks Casey,
>> >
>> > I'm not sure how to make this better (and my point was really only
>> > to focus more on how to make it better versus how to nag people etc).
>> >
>> > That said, I think that the problem I experience is that I have a
>> > hard time looking at something in the inbox, figuring out how out
>> > of date it might be, and figuring out exactly what changes it was
>> > originally attempting to make. In many cases, the submission might
>> > involve just a few methods, but it takes me a long time to figure
>> > that out by browsing the MCZ and cross-checking against emails.
>> >
>> > I find the Montecello process to be wonderful for development and
>> > for maintaining the update stream, but when I look at something
>> > that someone else submitted a few weeks ago, I find myself wishing
>> > that I could just look at the change set.
>> >
>> > So maybe I am just looking for a button that says "show me the
>> > change set" where the change set would be the changes that the
>> > original author was submitting two weeks ago.
>> >
>> > I have an uneasy feeling that there is some existing way to do
>> > this and I'm too dumb to have noticed it yet, so I'm preparing
>> > myself for an embarassing reply from Bert within the next few
>> > minutes ;)
>> >
>> > Thanks for the work you are doing on the inbox!
>> >
>> > Dave
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 01:45:24PM -0700, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>> >> David: I know how to tell you that I want something merged, but I don't
>> know how to make it smooth or fun.
>> >>
>> >> You said it's a pain right now. Would you develop that? I want to know
>> what I can do to make the Inbox process suck less for you (as a core
>> committer.)
>> >>
>> >> This is actually pretty important for me, because it's a great way for
>> me to get wonderful feedback about the code I'm writing. "What's this method
>> you're trying to add? You know there's already a method for that called
>> #foo, right?" Etcetera.
>> >>
>> >> It's such a great opportunity to learn that I've never wanted strongly
>> to ask for Trunk access, even after I hit the point where I felt pretty
>> comfortable with Smalltalk. I figure I'll ask when I actually need it, like
>> if I wanted to bring over my themes engine from Cuis, in which case there'd
>> be enough code that merging it in would be a pain for someone else.
>> >>
>> >> That said, I really value the feedback I get from the core dev team, so
>> I want to make doing so as painless as possible for them.
>> >>
>> >> I note that there is very little process around the Inbox covered in
>> Andreas' original development process document. We should amend the doc when
>> we figure out what works. I don't mind doing that, and I would bet that Mr.
>> Hirzel or Mr. Haupt could be convinced to step in if I am unexpectedly run
>> over by a bus.
>> >>
>> >> On Apr 15, 2011, at 12:42 PM, "David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:19:49AM -0700, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>> >>>> The more I think about it, the less I want Levente blocked on
>> integrating the menu item I added and committed to the inbox while he's
>> trying to checkin 14 commits that make our streams twice as fast.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think the root problem is probably communication, and I think it
>> might be partly that newcomers sometimes start off a little shy. I remember
>> when I first arrived, I knew I didn't know what I was doing, and asking to
>> get my bits merged felt a little awkward.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I also think that the healthiest solution will involve non-core devs
>> taking ownership of the inbox in a lot of ways.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Rather than make a single person a choke point, or force all of the
>> core devs to do more work or lose their commit bit, maybe I can convince a
>> core dev or two to volunteer to be goto people for merging inbox changes?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What do the core developers think about this?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I must say, I do like Chris' nag-mail idea.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think you should turn the question around backwards. Instead of
>> >>> "what can we do to to make people work on the inbox?" ask "what can
>> >>> we do to the inbox process to make people want to work on it?".
>> >>>
>> >>> For me, working on something in the inbox should be an enjoyable
>> >>> thing to do for an hour or so in the morning with a nice cup of
>> >>> fresh coffee. Right now it's kind of a pain to figure out what's
>> >>> going in the the inbox, so I tend to find something else to do
>> >>> while I'm sipping that cup of coffee.
>> >>>
>> >>> $0.02
>> >>>
>> >>> Dave
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Casey Ransberger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20110415/0acd508c/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list