[Squeakfoundation]Harvester status for Marcus Denker

[goran.krampe at bluefish.se]

Hi all!

Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
> [what is important to review]
> I find myself surprised, not completely unpleasently, at how different
> our tendencies are on this.
> 
> I say this is a little good, because it's a more complete picture of
> what we should be doing than any one of us would have. But it's mostly
> bad, because IMO, having each of us checking what we feel like stinks.

What we feel like?
 
> A. It sends out a really confused message as to what code should be like
> (you need a class comment, except if dvf is checking it, in which case
> just make sure you're not adding anything to Object! ;-)

I never said that the only thing I check for is a class comment - I just
noted that the code I have been looking at sofar has mostly been lacking
in that department. I would be very wary of letting new methods into
class Object too.

> B. It's not a way to improve the quality of the code. Let's face it, if
> three of the harvesters don't have the same standards, why the heck
> should we assume that Ted does have (and if does, who's does he have?
> Mine? Doug's?)

I am not sure we have such different standards - but I still agree that
we need a policy.

> We need a policy. It doesn't have to be complicated, but it needs to
> keep the image clean, systematically, not by chance. We need to balance
> this with keeping things fun, sure, so we'll have to be smart about it,
> but we need to deal with this. If we are warm and fluffy on this one, we
> can stop the cleanup projects right now, because quality will go down,
> not up, no matter how hard they work.
> 
> If we agree on this, here are some things I think we could do -
> * Find a good online reference for writing good Smalltalk code, ideally,
> something like Kents "Best Smalltalk practices". 
> * All of us read it, read all code before approving stuff, and point
> people at the manual when said stuff stinks.

What did you mean with "read all code" - you mean instead of simply
"trusting" someone? I always read all code I review, regardless of
author.

> * Require use of SLint. It's easy to install, there's a "SmallLint
> Tutorial" on SM.
> * Maybe make class comments mandatory, and implement some automated
> check for this, so I don't forget it.

I really think class comments should be mandatory.

> What do you think?
> Other ideas?

Well, it would be interesting to write down the policy somewhere - at
least the non obvious and the mandatory stuff. I am not saying "Swiki"
because I am a bit tired of simply creating more and more pages on the
Swikis, but if no other smarter way is found then sure, why not.

regards, Göran