Defining the damn 3.9 process! (was Re: SqueakFoundation money)

[Cees De Groot]

On 12/9/05, Adrian Lienhard <adi at netstyle.ch> wrote:
> I just see your post about grabbing latest packages from the inbox
> and doing an automatic build. I must have missed your concrete
> proposal(?)
>
never mind - if there were any differences with what you wrote down
they're minor anyway. And maybe my memory leaves me here (I'm getting
old, y'know ;-)).

> have a look at the inbox yourself and you will see. The problem is
> missing *visibility* because SqS at this state does not support
> deleting versions from a repository.
>
There's a lot of cruft there. But if you tell an MCConfiguration to
update a baseline from the inbox, it'll comply and ignore all the
cruft :-).

> "I think that it would be nice [...]

But I agree - it would be nice. Who is maintaining SqS at the moment?
Should we fork for the time being? These functions shouldn't be hard
to add, we just need to decide that we're going to fork a bit and have
one or two persons who pledge to make the necessary patches.

> I think its important to have something up and running _very soon_

+1

Re: Mantis. Probably the best thing to do is to check out Mantis a bit
and make a shortlist of the minimum stuff we'd need to support the
stewards -> inbox -> v3.9a process. Then Ken maybe can see what we
could tweak in the current Mantis, and then we could propose the rest
to Impara (Ken knows Mantis best from us all). Only if Impara declines
to change Mantis we should fallback to option 2 - a Wiki page or maybe
a very simple tracking app (I'll be happy to build one).