[Squeakfoundation]Self-approving fixes (was Re: ContextCleanupPlus-ajh)

[Daniel Vainsencher]

I agree generally, but 25% of ones harvests seems like something that is
too hard to keep track of. How about simply restricting it to very
simple stuff, that is under 1k of code?

This fits with a feeling I have that trivial cleanups should be easy to
insert, because they hold little risk, and big stuff should get more
reviews because they hold more risk.

Daniel

Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> >I know why isSymbol is needed, and don't personally mind your self
> >approving it. ...
> >
> 
> I've been thinking that the rigid "you can't approve your own 
> submission" rule is probably too strict.  When we started up the 
> harvesting group a couple of years ago (with SqC still in charge), 
> harvesters were allowed to harvest their own submissions, as long as 
> they mostly reviewed other people's.
> 
> What we could do is allow approving one's own submissions if they're 
> reasonably simple fixes.  But we should have some rule of thumb such as: 
> no more than 25% or so of the things you harvest should be your own 
> items, because we don't want the harvesters just working on their own stuff.
> 
> This would have the added benefit that if harvesters *really* wants to 
> get their own submissions in, they'll also review a few items from other 
> people, so that they meet the ~25% rule.
> 
> So something like this might encourage more harvesting.  It won't 
> necesssarily solve all of our current issues, but it's a start...
> 
> - Doug
> 
> 
> >I don't know why Number>>extend: is needed, and probably
> >won't miss it very much for the next 3 years. 
> >
> >And more to the point, those extensions Anthony wrote that are generally
> >useful (asBit, header information printer, around half the OC protocol 
> >mentioned), deserve to be presented to Squeakers so they'll get used, 
> >instead of becoming more browser-filler.
> >
> >Daniel
> >
> >Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 03:55:44AM +0200, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>[Additions to various classes...]
> >>>Note that my problem with these is not that I argue with the usefulness
> >>>of specific items - I simply don't think that it's appropriate to
> >>>include them as part of a fix. Why don't you post them one by one to the
> >>>mailing list for discussion, where people may argue whether they are
> >>>appropriate. You're saying that something should be part of the class
> >>>library, defend your opinions on squeak-dev, just like Richard does,
> >>>method by method, idea by idea.
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I just self-approved a two-liner I posted six weeks ago. So I would
> >>estimate that this procedure will take maybe 3 years.
> >>
> >>   Marcus
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de  -- Squeak! http://squeak.de
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Squeakfoundation mailing list
> >>Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> >>http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> >>    
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >Squeakfoundation mailing list
> >Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> >http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation