[DOCS] Constructive Development Process (was: re: release prioritization)
hannes.hirzel.squeaklist at bluewin.ch
Fri Feb 28 17:32:55 CET 2003
Craig Latta <craig.latta at netjam.org> wrote:
> I think we do have a constructive process.
You rise an important issue. I think this deserves attention.
Serge Stinckwich was suggesting on 17-Feb that we should think about the
Serge Stinckwich <Serge.Stinckwich at info.unicaen.fr> wrote:
> Hi all,
> i just found that the Python community use something they called PEP (Python Enhancements Proposals).
> PEP are design documents describing new feature for Python. There is a workflow that deals whith how the PEPs are manage
> by the community.
> Look at the PEP Purpose and Guidelines : http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html
> and the index of PEP here : http://www.python.org/peps/
> Maybe, we can build something like that for Squeak : Squeak Enhancements Proposals (SEP) ?
> in order to have a more rigourous development process.
Is it possible for you to do a short write-up of what you think when you
speak of a
constructive process? Where do you see the pros and cons? How do you
should change in the future?
A short write-up (bullet list) would already be a great start. If you
come to the conclusion
that the term 'constructive process' is not well chosen you may change
it of course.
Perhaps there is already some material on this - then an update and
sending in the
pointers to the list is sufficient!
If you could work on this that would be great!
More information about the Squeakfoundation