[Squeakfoundation]Order of business ...

Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:54:12 +0300

Until we have some automatic infrastructure to pick up everything
posted, I would not want to commit to us picking everything up - I don't
want to be enslaved to a work load we can't keep up with.

Pointing the community to what has been gathered, and telling them to
tell us what they want sounds good.

What do you think the infrastructure should look like so we can get a
better process up? given Seaside and related technology, I'm sure
someone in the community could help us realize this, if we can post a
clear sketch of minimal, critical functionality for a first release.

Daniel

Doug Way <dway@riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 03:03 PM, danielv@netvision.net.il 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Guides (fellow Squeakers in the audience? ;-)
> >
> > Three issues we should start moving on, IMO:
> > 1. Process to take physical ownership of updates.
> >  * Scott/SqC - do you have any remaining agenda for 3.4a/3.2.1, to
> > settle before handing over the "keys"?
> >  * Scott, are you interested in some role (as vaguely ;-) postulated by
> > goran, or otherwise) under the guidance (sic) of us Guides?
> >  * If neither of the above, can you explain the current existing tools
> > in the image for handling this and the required resources, so we can
> > plan a clean transition?
> >
> > I assume basically we'll need some public readable, Guides writeable
> > storage space on updates.squeakfoundation.org, and a final update on
> > both all current servers and versions that changes the urls currently in
> > the image. Am I missing something?
> 
> This sounds like the right idea.  I can contact Scott about this if he 
> doesn't respond soon, I'm not sure if he's following this list yet (or 
> keeping up with the torrent of emails & squeak-dev postings :-) ).
> 
> > 2. Start planning the next release, in terms of content.
> >  * I'll start a thread on the squeak-dev list to hear what people think.
> > I'll also outline the process for posting refactorings as I sent to you
> > guys on the internal "Re: Fwd: Re: Image factoring" thread, and see what
> > people think.
> >  * Doug, we need to know what's currently on the table of the former
> > Harvesters group, so we can decide what to integrate, what to reject,
> > and what to punt to the list and SM.
> 
> Well, there were two bundles of fixes harvested by myself and Luciano 
> about six months ago, which fell off the table somehow before making it 
> into the 3.3alpha update stream.  These were mostly useful fixes & 
> refactorings.  I could look at (non-module) retrofitting these to 
> 3.4alpha.  There haven't been all *that* many updates in the last six 
> months (which would potentially conflict), so this may not be too hard.
> 
> Other than that, there's the usual swarm of fixes/enhancements submitted 
> to the list over the last 6 months which still haven't been harvested, 
> or even put "on the table" (in the sqfixes harvesting tables).  (Adding 
> items to the sqfixes is only a semi-automatic process right now, which 
> is something in the process that we can definitely improve.)
> 
> I guess I need to think about whether to generate tables for the list 
> submissions over the last 6 months, or whether to just issue a call to 
> the list to re-submit items which people think are important.
> 
> >  * If you guys have directions you want the image to take in the near
> > term beyond what I summarized as "removing constraints", like a merge
> > plan to VI4, or whatever, I think now would be a good time to mention
> > it.
> >  * After we get some inputs from all these sources, I suggest we hash
> > out a basic release road map. As an initial sketch of it's shape (we'll
> > have actual content later) -
> >  3.4 - a quicky release to remove some constraints and test our process
> > for refactoring and removing a few obvious applications from Squeak.
> >  3.5 - a slightly longer release to optimize and continue the process,
> > stabilize our work tools.
> >  4.0 - New image format...
> 
> This sounds pretty good, at least for 3.4 and 3.5.  (I'll let others 
> comment on 4.0.)
> 
> - Doug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation