[squeak-dev] [ANN] Squeak 4.2

Chris Muller asqueaker at gmail.com
Sun Feb 13 00:15:31 UTC 2011

>> I agree about trying to remember to keep on top of it.  Except
>> "cleanliness" should not be the factor; we should merge to make a
>> better Squeak, not a cleaner Inbox.  :)
> That's the basic idea, but if the Inbox is not clean enough, then some
> people won't use it, just like Mantis. Long pending contributions discourage
> contributors. And we need the contributions of non-core developers, because
> core developers are not very active nowadays.
> I've got the following idea about keeping the Inbox clean:
> We define a time limit for keeping a contribution in the Inbox. Something
> like 1-2 weeks. If there's no activity about that contribution for this
> long, then we open a ticket for it on Mantis and move it to the Treated
> Inbox. The ticket would
> - contain the name and comment of the mcz
> - be attached to the ticket of the next release
> so the contribution would remain in our sight.

Please don't do that.  The way to clean the Inbox is to push through
the work of reviewing, discussing and either accepting or rejecting.
Simply moving items "out of sight" does not clean the "situation", in
fact it actually makes the situation worse because now we have half of
our unreviewed contributions in the Inbox and half in Mantis.  I just
don't see myself going out to Mantis to review "expired"
contributions.  It's like a black hole, digging something out of there
requires manual effort, vs. simply selecting it right in the image and
diffing it.

I'm just saying, contributors should be able to expect that their
items in the Inbox will be handled based solely on the merits of the
change, not based on time-limits or how many other items are in the
Inbox.  Losing good contributions that people made, who expect the
InBox process to work a certain way; THAT would be a good way to
discourage contributions.  To keep it clean, I think we just gotta do
the work..


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list