[Squeakfoundation]re: TrueType font support and 3.6

[Daniel Vainsencher]

Hi Andreas - 

I'm confused too. Let's try to isolate the problem.

Claim I - We have a piece of code that's candidate for inclusion. We all
agree it has flaws as detected by even cursory inspections. 

Claim II - I percieve as a very obvious, general rule that at every
stage of mixing code in with more of the real world, the price of fixing
errors goes up, because problems are easier to solve in isolation.
Therefore, make it work, make it right, then deploy wider.

Conclusion - I claim this piece of code (and all others) should be fixed
first, and accepted later. 

Do we disagree on the code, on the software engineering rule of thumb,
on its application to this code, or on its application to Squeak code in
general?

I don't see what this has to do with beta - beta is there because
inspections and isolated testing aren't perfect, not as an excuse to
ignore them.

I also never required that conflicts be checked with "all ongoing work"
- MCP is part of Squeak 3.6 as of 5240, IIRC. Conflicts with previously
included work should be detected and resolved, of course - when we don't
do this, we get the annoying "didnt I fix this already" effect.

This situation will always arise for each of us personally - we want to
include something because it is cool functionality. On the other hand,
the work hasn't been done yet to bring it up to the desired quality
level. What will we do, every time we're in this bind? argue on SqF, or
review on squeak-dev?

Daniel

Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> > A quicky partial review of v5 does
> > show some things that could use some cleanup:
> >  - at least one method clashes with MCP.
> >  - The single GrafPort method sends to super but implicitly returns
> > self.
> >  - Paragraph>>asForm does an "isKindOf: TTCFont"
> > 
> > So IMO, this code doesn't belong in Basic, yet.
> 
> Err ... excuse me, but the above issues sound exactly like the things one
> would address in *beta* not in alpha. Requiring (for example) that there are
> no conflicts with any other ongoing work is almost impossible - the
> declarative pools have some conflicts too and I won't bother tracking all of
> the yet-to-come KCP changes until I actually know them (as in: being
> finalized and published).
> 
> Seriously confused,
>   - Andreas
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation