[Squeakfoundation]Incorporating removals & KCP stuff

Wed May 7 20:27:17 CEST 2003

On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 08:04 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> I see a couple of alternatives -
> 1. Doug uses the script on the swiki to get the changesets and adds the
> ones I approved  to the update stream. I don't know how much more work
> this is than getting them off the list, might be easier. Doug?

I think that this is the best because we avoid file manipulation.
By the way the 0011 is not buggy and plain normal.
Daniel noury went over everything and added some fixes but as new 
changesets.

> 2. KCP/MCP adapt the "send a changeset to the mailing list" code in the
> image ChangeSorter>>mailToList or something like that to send a bunch 
> of
> changes to the list, and we can run it once every time we get a bunch 
> of
> changes approved. Not much work, keeps this part of the process the 
> same
> as regular harvesting and if done as multiple attachments in one mail 
> it
> isn't much noise for the list.
>
> What do you guys say?
>
> Daniel
>
> Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>> Hi guys
>>
>> I'm a bit lost to know how to proceed. Our changesets are based on 3.5
>> for now and they are available on the page. I do not see the need to
>> send them in the list now.
>> Daniel: noury did a pass and improved it ;)
>>
>> This afternoon we will have a discussion with the others here
>>
>> Stef
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 02:19 AM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>>
>>> I say just split the removals. Notify the owners/on squeak-dev, and
>>> remove only the packages that can return. We can do the other 
>>> removals
>>> either as people fix the packages or next release. Let's just get it
>>> over with, so we can go back to work.
>>>
>>> Do that, I'll test vs. KCP, we load KCP, and then resume harvesting 
>>> the
>>> regular stuff.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (moving this to the SqF list since we're doing the final 
>>>> coordination
>>>> now...)
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I've gone through the KCP stuff. I know we orginally decided to
>>>>> do
>>>>> the removals first, but I had an urge, and this doesn't touch so 
>>>>> many
>>>>> different classes that I'm very worried about clashes. Anyway, it
>>>>> seems
>>>>> as the designated reviewer for this specific project I got back 
>>>>> from
>>>>> my
>>>>> vacation before the removals were done, and I don't see much reason
>>>>> not
>>>>> to merge these now, but I don't mind checking the conflicts if this
>>>>> proposal isn't accepted.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, we need to get moving on the KCP stuff and the removals now, 
>>>> so
>>>> we can
>>>> move on with the 3.6 plan (including the various enhancements we've
>>>> been
>>>> discussing).
>>>>
>>>> Here's what I would suggest:  We incorporate the 10 removals first,
>>>> all in one
>>>> batch as Goran and I suggested.  This would be very soon, let's say
>>>> tomorrow.
>>>> Then, Daniel can check for conflicts between the approved KCP items
>>>> and the
>>>> removals.  My understanding is that there should be few conflicts.
>>>>
>>>> Then, the adjusted KCP changes can be incorporated (after having at
>>>> least the
>>>> preambles posted to the list as a sort of final review).  If changes
>>>> need to
>>>> be made in a few of the removed packages to account for the KCP
>>>> changes,
>>>> perhaps Daniel could inform the package owners of the required
>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I think doing all the removals in one batch is the way to 
>>>> go.
>>>>  There
>>>> will be two types of problems we'll have to deal with:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Problems/bugs caused by the removals.  These should be relatively
>>>> minor and
>>>> easy to fix, I'd think.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Problems/bugs/conflicts when re-loading any or all of the 10
>>>> packages.
>>>> These problems will probably be more significant, but these problems
>>>> need to
>>>> be pushed back to the package owners at some point anyway.  We're
>>>> moving to a
>>>> model where package owners need to maintain their packages against
>>>> base image
>>>> (prerequisite) changes, so we might as well start this now.  It may
>>>> well be
>>>> that some packages (such as PWS) are not actively maintained and
>>>> become
>>>> obsolete because no one really uses them.  If that happens, either a
>>>> more
>>>> active package maintainer will have to step up, or the package could
>>>> be
>>>> removed from "Squeak Official" status, which would remove it from 
>>>> the
>>>> public
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Before thinking about incorporating the 10 removals, I decided to do
>>>> some
>>>> testing.  To remove the 10 packages, I gave Goran's removal script a
>>>> try.
>>>> That appears to work.
>>>>
>>>> Then I decided to try re-adding the 10 packages one by one into an
>>>> image to
>>>> get back to the "Full" release.  I did it in this order, with the
>>>> following
>>>> results:
>>>>
>>>> 1. SUnit - Yes.
>>>> 2. BaseImage Tests - Yes.
>>>> 3. Celeste Installation - Yes.
>>>> 4. Games (and GamesTests) - Yes.
>>>> 5. VMMaker - No.  Not auto-installable, but trying to download it
>>>> results in a
>>>> "MNU: download", even after setting the download directory.
>>>> 6. MacroBenchmarks - No.  Couldn't find a MacroBenchmarks package on
>>>> SM!
>>>> 7. PWS Installation - Yes.
>>>> 8. Scamper - Yes.
>>>> 9. Speech - No.  Installation results in a "MNU: arpabet".
>>>> 10. Balloon3D - Yes.
>>>>
>>>> So, we need to at least fix the loading problems with the three
>>>> packages
>>>> before incorporating the removals.
>>>>
>>>> Beyond that, ideally we'd also like to have Test packages for all 10
>>>> of these
>>>> packages as well, which pass... right now only a few packages have
>>>> them.  I
>>>> don't think we should hold up incorporating the removals for this,
>>>> though.
>>>> But we should probably try to have them available before we move to
>>>> 3.6beta,
>>>> at least.  Marcus and I can work on bugging the package owners to
>>>> create these
>>>> Test packages.  All future package removal/additions will have to
>>>> have a
>>>> corresponding Test package ahead of time so we don't get in this
>>>> situation
>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>> We still need to resolve the issue of how I should load the removal
>>>> script
>>>> without SqueakMap, SAR, etc., because those won't be there in the
>>>> vanilla
>>>> 3.6alpha image.  Probably SAR is the only really important one... I
>>>> don't know
>>>> if any require DVS.  I guess I'll just have to poke around with the
>>>> removal
>>>> scripts and make them into a series of regular file-ins.  (An
>>>> alternative
>>>> might be to include SAR in the base image for now.  SAR should
>>>> probably be
>>>> part of the Full and Basic releases anyway.  Yes, we would end up
>>>> splitting
>>>> off SAR again sometime later as we whittled down to the Minimal
>>>> image, but so
>>>> what?  Same probably goes for SqueakMap.)
>>>>
>>>> - Doug Way
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>