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

[stéphane ducasse]

Hi

I think that philippe can merge and add configuration to the sqS  
branches. Bert agreed on that already.

Stef

On 11 déc. 05, at 06:57, Doug Way wrote:

>
> 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
>