[V3dot10] And to 3.10
milan.zimmermann at sympatico.ca
Tue Jan 23 05:34:14 UTC 2007
On 2007 January 21 21:02, Ralph Johnson wrote:
> On 1/21/07, Milan Zimmermann <milan.zimmermann at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > I think that it is the right thing to make teams responsible for
> > approving fixes on Mantis for their category of responsibility. (Perhaps
> > with a slight clarification of how the categories on Mantis map to each
> > team, also this "mapping" may change once bigger chunks are maintained
> > outside the image, but it seems the right principle to implement).
> The main problem with this is that there are important categories of
> classes for which there is no team responsible. There is no "Kernel"
> team, or "System" team, or "Collection" team, or "Tools" team. I've
> been told that most of the unresolved issues in Mantis are in these
> categories, and that if there is a working team then they have been
> taking care of things.
You are right, I agree most of the code is not covered by teams. Perhaps fixes
for code covered by Teams should be teams primary responsibility (to the
point the team saying: accept this fix, reject this fix), the harvesting team
would be the team responsible for the rest (uncovered) code. The harvesting
team would harvest all accepted fixes. This probably does not coincide with
KLeith's process very well though...
I still cannot reach Mantis, but from what I remember, on Mantis, the
categories essentially (broadly) coincide with "class packages". Would it
make sense for someone knowledgeable to take a list of teams, and assign each
team a list of categories on Mantis, (the rest of the Mantic categories would
be for the harvestors to take care of) - or perhaps is that self-evident ...
I am just looking to document this process to a degree...
> I would prefer to follow this approach, but it will mean forming some
> more teams until all the image is covered.
> V3dot10 mailing list
> V3dot10 at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the V3dot10