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

[Adrian Lienhard]

On Dec 9, 2005, at 13:36 , Cees De Groot wrote:

> On 12/9/05, Adrian Lienhard <adi at netstyle.ch> wrote:
[..]

>> "I think that it would be nice [...]
>
> But I agree - it would be nice. Who is maintaining SqS at the moment?

well, this should be Lukas and me for the "official" version.  
However, we just haven't had much time to do much (development of SqS  
2 stalled). Philippe Marshall once helped integrating a bunch of  
enhancements of Impara...

> 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.

the 3.9 SqS is already a fork (actually, I think, it's a fork of the  
Impara fork).

I'm going to invest some time of netstyle.ch to enhance SqS to  
support the process (at least the inbox issue, that is, being able to  
move versions between repositories, and probably, deleting versions).  
I see, it's self-hosted (http://source.squeakfoundation.org/ss.html)  
and Doug is the admin.

Doug, if we do improvements, how do we work together? I.e., who is  
the maintainer of SqS-SqF and does the deployment?

>
>> 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).

ok, now, who does lead the investigation and reports possible options  
so that we can decide what to do? Cees?

Adrian