[Squeakfoundation]re: release prioritization

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Mon Mar 3 12:19:38 CET 2003

Hi all!

Ok, this post is a bit "annoyed" (typing this line in afterwards). Hey,
it happens in even the best of families. ;-)

Hannes Hirzel <hannes.hirzel.squeaklist at bluewin.ch> wrote:
> >but to what extent should particular tests delay a particular
> > release? I think that's the main issue here.
> > 
> > 
> > 	thanks,
> > 
> > -C
> > 
> Excellent question!
> IMHO the main issue is that if I look at 
> http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/70
> I see the names of the guides:
>     * Doug Way
>     * Daniel Vainsencher
>     * Ned Konz
>     * Craig Latta
>     * Göran Hultgren
>     * Tim Rowledge 
> Then I click on the link 'Release Plan'
> (http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/79)
> Then I read 
>  3.4 -- The main purpose of this release is to create an 
>    up to date, 
>    viable version, 
>    that's a good starting point 
>    to making Squeak more modular and it's development more
> decentralized.
> Changes:
> - Includes non-modules related updates from 3.3a, including the dynamic
> filelist services refactoring.
> - An option to load the SqueakMap package catalog and the base Package
> Loader from the net.
> - A dynamic open menu so packages can now register there and become
> first class applications.
> - Refactorings making various parts of the image easily removable. See
> Modularizing the Squeak image for the plan and status.
> - Various other fixes have been included.
> Release is tentatively set to end of 2002. 
> ------
> Now a question everybody who is looking at your work would come up with:
> Are these goals met and if yes by which criteria is this evaluated.
> You have put five points on this list. What do you have to say about
> them
> at the end of February?

Well, I think it looks good. :-) Personally I think we aimed to include
refactorings that "got finished". I wouldn't characterize them as being
the goal though. If that was the case then 3.4 would have taken a
loooong time.

> Postponing an issue is fully a viable option  if there are important new
> reasons coming up.
> This has to be discussed and communicated. 

And it *is* being discussed all the time.

> And: A list of open issues and major known bugs is surely a useful tool
> for guiding a development process. 

Indeed. Would you mind setting one up? I have made offers earlier in
this regard but will keep my focus on SM. (Hint: The guides aren't SqC.
We are not intended to do the work *for* the community.)

It would of course be good if a bugsystem was integrated in Squeak
otherwise it will not be used much I think.

> I do not see any links on the above mentioned pages.

But you did see that it said "sketch" at the top I presume?

> In the SqC area for various reasons Dan Ingalls used to be the
> "development process" 
> (chief programmer approach). Because of his long experience he just took
> care of a lot of things.
> In the post SqC area the process should be made more explicit. We have
> all these nice tools and communication aids (mailing lists, Swikis /
> even world wide phone calls are accessible for many) - why not use them?

We *are* using them. (Getting a bit annoyed here, but I will just count
to 10)

(I agree though on making the process more explicit - we are trying

> I'm hoping that this stimulates you to not soley focus on  schedule
> issues.

Guess what? This post doesn't stimulate me to do anything at all.
Perhaps I am in a bad mood today (didn't think I was because 3.4 just
got released but hey) but you are simply just making me annoyed.

I am one of the guides but the whole point with calling us "guides" is
because we are *just* that. The intention is that we are all in this
together and that we are doing it all because it is fun.

And if you are asking for directions for future releases (3.5 and
beyond) - hell, I have a couple of good ideas about 3.5 but that is it.
We don't know more than you do and we don't communicate outside of the
SqF-list so WYSIWYG.

If you want to hear my ideas about 3.5 then just *ask* me/us.

> I really recommend you to (re)read the excellent write-up by
> Daniel Vainsencher about the nature of releases 
> http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/squeak/1555651 (Email from
> today).

I have read it, I read everything Daniel writes. It is good as always.

> Regards and happy Squeaking!
> Hannes 

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeakfoundation mailing list