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

[Doug Way]

On Dec 9, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:

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

True, although it's pretty much identical to the Impara version, except 
for a very small fix or two.  Well, identical to an Impara version from 
a few months ago, I haven't kept up with the latest Impara changes.

> 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'm the maintainer for now, although I'd like to have someone else 
knowledgable on maintaining/deploying it.  We could work together on 
that.

I agree that some enhancements are definitely needed, such as moving 
versions between repositories, etc.  Also, the issue of making it 
easier to give some people project-creation access (without giving that 
access to everyone) is another one.  (Currently, only Marcus, Avi & 
myself are superadmins with project-creation access on 
source.sqf.org... I have to set a flag in the image to set someone as a 
superadmin, it should really be doable through the SS UI.)

>>> 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?

Also, option 3 might be if a few Mantis tweaks are needed and Impara 
isn't able to work on them, we could set up our own Mantis server and 
tweak it ourselves (I think it's C code, though).  I'm not volunteering 
for that, though. :)  Also, we might not actually need any tweaks.

- Doug