[Squeakfoundation]Shepherding large enhancements

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Thu Jun 26 12:41:00 CEST 2003


Hi all!

<diegogomezdeck at consultar.com> wrote:
> I'm going to shout also... Seems like an acepted way.

Well, no - it is probably not. Except when the sender is Richard! ;-)

It was dumb of me to introduce CAPS but I *did* add a smiley etc.
I will not use it anymore.

> >>> I'm against having a release on Friday.
> >>>
> >>> Just look at the BugfixArchive: There's a lot of stuff pending,
> >>> which really needs to be included. And my feeling is, that there's
> >>> just not enough "new" stuff in 3.6 to allow a new release: Like 3.5,
> >>> we'd get a "new release" nobody would use.
> >>
> >> Agree as I mention in one of my early emails.
> >> 3.6 should be sexy in terms of new stuff/clean/improvements.
> >> Let us make it really sexy.
> >
> > Hmmm. And then people - WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY THIS WHEN THE 3.6 PLAN WAS
> > POSTED???
> 
> IIRC, There was a (big?) group of people saying that since the very
> beginning.

I have looked through the "3.6 Plan" thread (many posts so mostly
skimming) and can not find this. Sure, there were discussions and TTF +
NewLook was proposed and incorporated. But nothing more as I could see
it. We discussed, added a few things and got to a conclusion - that is
how I read it.

So the thing I am reacting about now is adding even *more* (and we are
not talking FIXes - they always go in). And not TTF and NewLook - they
are going in as we speak if people do their reviewing now. TTF seems to
be in the clear, don't know the final saying on NewLook.

> > He, I couldn't help myself, sorry for the shouting. ;-) But I really
> > mean it. We agreed on the plan. And one of the things we wanted to do
> > is to have faster release cycles than before - we are aiming for 3
> > releases per year IIRC.
> 
> We are not talking about the plan. We're talking WHAT to do in the case
> (like now) that the plan CAN'T be respected.

Who says it CAN'T be respected? I say it can.

You are saying - this is how it sounds anyway and please correct me -
that you didn't agree to the plan in the first place so now you are
implying that we should forget about the plan and start adding whatever
makes it sexy enough?

I don't buy it.

> We had choosed Date and Features (an error in itself).  Some of us want to
> respect the date, other (including me) want to respect the Features.

It was not an error - it was a calculated balance.

> > There will ALWAYS be stuff to harvest. There will ALWAYS be cool new
> > stuff to add. But we need a proper beta and gamma period.
> 
> What is more important? the "proper periods" or the results?

The result is highly connected to the beta/gamma periods. If we don't
have them then the end result will suffer in stability. We all know
that.

> > Personally I think we should stick to the plan but move the beta start
> > a few days so that NewLook, TTF and Simulatorfixes can get in.
> >
> > IMHO SM1.1 can wait until early 3.7. Even if it breaks my heart to
> > admit it. :-)
> 
> Every time we talked about what to include in tha image the anser
> was: "Ehhh... wait... the configuration maps are coming".
> 
> IMO, the SM1.1 is a MUST to avoid a fork in the community.

I agree. Read my other post where I explain what I mean.

regards, Göran


More information about the Squeakfoundation mailing list