Folks -
You might (or might not ;-) have noticed this but due to some internal reshuffling of responsibilities [1] I am now the "official" board liaison for the 3.11 release. Randal remains the contact for 4.0 since it's so intrinsically connected to relicensing but I'm trying to help out since he would otherwise have too many responsibilities all at once.
I've been looking at the archives but since there wasn't too much communication I am not sure how I can best help. Please let me know what you'd like help with - I can be anything from coder, to tester, to whip, help communicate, or whatnot. Your choice ;-)
I still feel somewhat uncomfortable defining when exactly we would consider 3.11 "done" and how far along we are in that process. I would very much like to try to come to a schedule which we can communicate and work towards so I'd appreciate any help you can provide.
Cheers, - Andreas
[1]http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/meeting-report-for-422009/
Andreas Raab wrote:
Folks -
You might (or might not ;-) have noticed this but due to some internal reshuffling of responsibilities [1] I am now the "official" board liaison for the 3.11 release. Randal remains the contact for 4.0 since it's so intrinsically connected to relicensing but I'm trying to help out since he would otherwise have too many responsibilities all at once.
I've been looking at the archives but since there wasn't too much communication I am not sure how I can best help. Please let me know what you'd like help with - I can be anything from coder, to tester, to whip, help communicate, or whatnot. Your choice ;-)
I still feel somewhat uncomfortable defining when exactly we would consider 3.11 "done" and how far along we are in that process. I would very much like to try to come to a schedule which we can communicate and work towards so I'd appreciate any help you can provide.
Cheers,
- Andreas
Hello Andreas,
I am afraid I have been completely snowed under. As soon as I get some spare time I will set bob building the "test"image from the tests marked on mantis.
I would like 3.11 to be based upon the closures image. Bob has built an -lpf, and a -build using the closures image, but there is still some debugging to do.
So I think the most helpful thing for you to help with would be to help knock the closures image into shape. (The pharo guys have been doing a fair bit of work with integrating it)
How does that sound?
Keith
Keith Hodges wrote:
I am afraid I have been completely snowed under. As soon as I get some spare time I will set bob building the "test"image from the tests marked on mantis.
What will this achieve with respect to the 3.11 milestones? I'm still struggling trying to understand how to measure when 3.11 is done. Can anyone help me understanding this? When exactly do *you* think 3.11 is done and how would you measure progress on the way to that goal?
[BTW, I'm still completely confused about whether 3.11 has even started, whether it is in alpha or in beta or what. I keep getting contradicting answers and it would be mightily helpful if someone could clear up that confusion as well]
I would like 3.11 to be based upon the closures image. Bob has built an -lpf, and a -build using the closures image, but there is still some debugging to do.
So I think the most helpful thing for you to help with would be to help knock the closures image into shape. (The pharo guys have been doing a fair bit of work with integrating it)
How does that sound?
To be honest, it sounds like feature creep ;-) Closures weren't on the list for the 3.11 when the process began and I'd rather get 3.11 finished than expand its scope. I have the feeling that you are all having troubles finding enough time to move 3.11 forward and in this situation expanding scope is probably not helpful.
Cheers, - Andreas
Andreas,
Randal said hold off on on 3.11 until 4.10 is done. I took a bit of time to try and pay my way. Then you present a coup d'etat without discussion.
What is the release@lists.squeakfoundation.org for?
I give you a clue.... discussing things that are relevant to the release team.
If I wanted to work for people who acted like this I would go and work for pharo. The whole point of staying with squeak is that we dont want to act like a bunch of arogant twats. So Andreas, I respectfully ask that you BACK OFF, and work WITH people not against them.
Why cause problems when there werent any.
I dont use MCM's, because I dont understand them and they are useless. So an update mechanism based on them is a no go.
Keith
Hi Keith -
Randal said hold off on on 3.11 until 4.10 is done. I took a bit of time to try and pay my way. Then you present a coup d'etat without discussion.
Where were you the last week? ;-) There have been literally hundreds of messages on Squeak-dev. And, by definition a coup d'etat is "is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment". I am a legitimate member of the governing body of the Squeak community, I have been elected, and the board agrees with the proposal. So, clearly, this isn't a coup d'etat. It is in fact the sole reason why I ran for the board to begin with, see for example here:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-February/134124....
What is the release@lists.squeakfoundation.org for?
I give you a clue.... discussing things that are relevant to the release team.
What I've been proposing is intended for the community at large, not for the (much smaller) release team. That's why I've posted on Squeak-dev.
If I wanted to work for people who acted like this I would go and work for pharo. The whole point of staying with squeak is that we dont want to act like a bunch of arogant twats. So Andreas, I respectfully ask that you BACK OFF, and work WITH people not against them.
In return I respectfully ask you to stop using ALL CAPS. I have absolutely no intension to work against you. You might have missed this but the proposal includes all the parts of the infrastructure you've been working, from Installer to Bob.
Why cause problems when there werent any.
Now that I would disagree with ;-) The community at large had problems contributing. Yes, you and Matthew did contribute, but except from you two nobody understood how. As you will remember I've tried several time to explain what I thought the contribution process is but it's way to complex for people to easily contribute. We need to get past this, as a community we can't afford processes that only allow one or two people to contribute.
I dont use MCM's, because I dont understand them and they are useless. So an update mechanism based on them is a no go.
That's okay, you don't have to use MCMs for your work. I have used them extensively, they work and although they have shortcomings they can be made to work for an update mechanism. I'm surprised you say it's a "no go" given that I've already proven that they can work:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-July/136870.html
In addition, here is a quote from the post: "We are evaluating alternative approaches, in particular the use of Installer since there are some shortcomings when using Monticello Configurations." Igor is actively looking into that area and you can help him define an easier process.
Cheers, - Andreas
Andreas Raab wrote:
Hi Keith -
Randal said hold off on on 3.11 until 4.10 is done. I took a bit of time to try and pay my way. Then you present a coup d'etat without discussion.
Where were you the last week? ;-) There have been literally hundreds of messages on Squeak-dev.
Avoiding the discussion as much as possible.
It included many contributions and ideas that have been done to death in the past. The main protagonists of the discussion appeared to be people I had never seen before and since they were just talking.
And, by definition a coup d'etat is "is the sudden
Yes sudden... all I saw was two messages yesterday announcing "THE new process" not even "A" new process.
unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment". I am a legitimate member of the governing body of the Squeak community, I have been elected, and the board agrees with the proposal. So, clearly, this isn't a coup d'etat. It is in fact the sole reason why I ran for the board to begin with, see for example here:
The last time the board acted like this is cancelled 3.11 altogether in favour of spoon, that doesn't mean it is right.
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-February/134124....
What is the release@lists.squeakfoundation.org for?
I give you a clue.... discussing things that are relevant to the release team.
What I've been proposing is intended for the community at large, not for the (much smaller) release team. That's why I've posted on Squeak-dev.
We have mantis for the community at large, how about encouraging people to use it.
How does posting an update to a MC package help when... there is no context or explanation as to what the update is for. And the image hasnt yet been divided up in to suitable module/packages for this kind of module maintenance.
In return I respectfully ask you to stop using ALL CAPS. I have absolutely no intension to work against you. You might have missed this but the proposal includes all the parts of the infrastructure you've been working, from Installer to Bob.
Why cause problems when there werent any.
You confuse technical problems with people problems. I am talking about causing people problems.
Management problem... announcing to Squeak-dev new proposals without consulting the people that this effects.
Now that I would disagree with ;-) The community at large had problems contributing.
The community at large isnt being encouraged to volunter and discuss their potential contributions on release or irc.
Yes, you and Matthew did contribute, but except from you two nobody understood how. As you will remember I've tried several time to explain what I thought the contribution process is but it's way to complex for people to easily contribute.
You explained it to people, I have seen you... so why do you say it is too dificult now.
1. for the kernel put fixes on mantis, its not hard. Bob handles the MC side of things (in theory) 2. For loadable packages, contribute to the maintenance of the package (define the package in Universes/Sake) 3. For unloadable packages, contribute both 1 and 2.
We need to get past this, as a community we can't afford processes that only allow one or two people to contribute.
I dont use MCM's, because I dont understand them and they are useless. So an update mechanism based on them is a no go.
That's okay, you don't have to use MCMs for your work. I have used them extensively, they work and although they have shortcomings they can be made to work for an update mechanism. I'm surprised you say it's a "no go" given that I've already proven that they can work:
The whole idea of an update mechanism is an anathema... its back to a moving target.
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-July/136870.html
In addition, here is a quote from the post: "We are evaluating alternative approaches, in particular the use of Installer since there are some shortcomings when using Monticello Configurations."
First I have head of it, but then I dont use mcm's. MCM support fixes are included in LPF whether they work as advertised I don't know.
Keith
Keith Hodges wrote:
And, by definition a coup d'etat is "is the sudden
Yes sudden... all I saw was two messages yesterday announcing "THE new process" not even "A" new process.
This is an odd thing to say. Check the title of the blog post, check the title of the email message.
What is the release@lists.squeakfoundation.org for?
I give you a clue.... discussing things that are relevant to the release team.
What I've been proposing is intended for the community at large, not for the (much smaller) release team. That's why I've posted on Squeak-dev.
We have mantis for the community at large, how about encouraging people to use it.
Which I have done, have I not? Over and over.
You confuse technical problems with people problems. I am talking about causing people problems.
Management problem... announcing to Squeak-dev new proposals without consulting the people that this effects.
I felt that the people who this affects is the Squeak community, generally represented on Squeak-dev. That's where I posted to consult people about the idea.
Now that I would disagree with ;-) The community at large had problems contributing.
The community at large isnt being encouraged to volunter and discuss their potential contributions on release or irc.
Well, I certainly feel like having done my share here. My conclusion from doing it was that the process is wrong, too different from what people know in real software development, too complex, too weird, too many steps.
Yes, you and Matthew did contribute, but except from you two nobody understood how. As you will remember I've tried several time to explain what I thought the contribution process is but it's way to complex for people to easily contribute.
You explained it to people, I have seen you... so why do you say it is too dificult now.
I always felt it was too difficult. But I did not want to discourage others by saying so openly. It would not have been helpful and early on I hadn't seen enough to know whether this may work or not. But having seen the process for many months now, failing despite best attempts to document and publicize it, I feel it's time to move forward and try one of the processes that actually do work in commercial software development.
Cheers, - Andreas
Well, I certainly feel like having done my share here. My conclusion from doing it was that the process is wrong, too different from what people know in real software development, too complex, too weird, too many steps.
I dont know what you are talking about... this is closer to what people do in normal development... out in the non squeak world they have a thing called "make" Make defines tasks that are assembled together to perform a build. Builds are preformed regularly together with automated testing.
Yes, you and Matthew did contribute, but except from you two nobody understood how. As you will remember I've tried several time to explain what I thought the contribution process is but it's way to complex for people to easily contribute.
You explained it to people, I have seen you... so why do you say it is too dificult now.
I always felt it was too difficult.
The whole point is to make it simpler, but since you havent seen it end to end you think it is complicated. What is complicated about it...
I say again... you submit you fixes to mantis, and bob builds the image and documents the changes for you.
But I did not want to discourage others by saying so openly. It would not have been helpful and early on I hadn't seen enough to know whether this may work or not. But having seen the process for many months now, failing despite best attempts to document and publicize it, I feel it's time to move forward and try one of the processes that actually do work in commercial software development.
I do commercial software development too, and working to a moving target doesnt work.
This is your last chance to apologise, for not discussing any of this with me, before I quit
Keith
Keith Hodges wrote:
I dont know what you are talking about... this is closer to what people do in normal development... out in the non squeak world they have a thing called "make" Make defines tasks that are assembled together to perform a build. Builds are preformed regularly together with automated testing.
Indeed. But make generally runs against a set of well-defined source code repositories, not against an issue tracker. The source code repository is accessible to the developer and allows the developer to quickly do many important operations (merge, diff, compare). That's just the model I'm after.
The whole point is to make it simpler, but since you havent seen it end to end you think it is complicated. What is complicated about it...
I say again... you submit you fixes to mantis, and bob builds the image and documents the changes for you.
A typical use case is that a developer starts some bit of work this week and then only gets around to work on it again two weeks later. What the developer needs to be able to do is to find out what changed, find out whether it affects any part that he was working on, and merge eventual differences. Monticello can handle these tasks trivially, I have no idea how Mantis or Bob would help me here.
I do commercial software development too, and working to a moving target doesnt work.
Out of curiosity, how big are these projects (i.e., how many people work on them concurrently)?
[BTW, I gotta run to work; I'm late already. I'll be back tonight.]
Cheers, - Andreas
A typical use case is that a developer starts some bit of work this week and then only gets around to work on it again two weeks later. What the developer needs to be able to do is to find out what changed, find out whether it affects any part that he was working on, and merge eventual differences. Monticello can handle these tasks trivially, I have no idea how Mantis or Bob would help me here.
If you specify a build that you are working on then there is an MC repository for that build, e.g. 3.11. As you modify the items that contribute to that build the MC repository gets updated each time the build is run, if a pacakge has changed.
I admit that this is the most experimental and unproven part of the idea.
An example...
1. I run the build... and it generates the packages e.g. 311/Network-bob.20.mcz
2. A while later I have a couple more fixes added to Mantis, Bob tracks mantis and so can work out what they are.
3. I run the build again and it generates the package 3.11/Network-bob.21.mcz and adds the comment indicating that two fixes were added since the last time.
like I say experimental (and somewhat slow)
Keith
Guys, maybe you should turn a discussion in more rational plane?
What i am thinking about, and what was discussed during board meeting is to find a most simple & most comprehensive development model for distributed development, by considering what tools we have and what can be used for what purposes, and what fits best for such aims.
So, my concern is to see a clear & simple instructions to anyone who would want to contribute in a simple and well understood steps, as easy as: 1. do this 2. do that 3. then do this.
Take in account, that we should not assume that people having any knowledge about either Installer or MC or whatsoever. Or even if having, just very basic one. Understand, the more technical & usability prerequisites we put in these steps, the more harder it would be for decent people to understand the process and use it effectively to contribute.
We could have a lot of cool stuff, but unless it turns own face to developers, no-one would want to use it. So Keith & Andreas, you can be an experts in using different tools, and argue to death what is better. But this is not the point, i think. Think as an outsider, who just came here, and think, how many he should learn & keep in mind, in order to become an effective contributor to Squeak. And thus, our aims, how we could minimise his efforts.
2009/7/2 Keith Hodges keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk:
A typical use case is that a developer starts some bit of work this week and then only gets around to work on it again two weeks later. What the developer needs to be able to do is to find out what changed, find out whether it affects any part that he was working on, and merge eventual differences. Monticello can handle these tasks trivially, I have no idea how Mantis or Bob would help me here.
If you specify a build that you are working on then there is an MC repository for that build, e.g. 3.11. As you modify the items that contribute to that build the MC repository gets updated each time the build is run, if a pacakge has changed.
I admit that this is the most experimental and unproven part of the idea.
An example...
- I run the build... and it generates the packages e.g.
311/Network-bob.20.mcz
- A while later I have a couple more fixes added to Mantis, Bob tracks
mantis and so can work out what they are.
- I run the build again and it generates the package
3.11/Network-bob.21.mcz and adds the comment indicating that two fixes were added since the last time.
like I say experimental (and somewhat slow)
Keith _______________________________________________ Release mailing list Release@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/release
Some words about Mantis.
Keith, Klaus, you are right that Maintis is useful tool for 1. identifying problem (by placing a ticket) 2. provide a possible fix (and discuss it in comments, whether the provided solution good or bad) 3. finally mark it as fixed or reject it, or forgot about it and let it rot there for years.
but i see a little gap here between usual Squeak user & those who contribute to Mantis.
There is no sense of continuous process/progress, because we don't have some form of digests, which could in compressed form, simply & straighly announce about latest fixes which has been approved & going into the image.
That's why i think, for anyone who not using/reading/watching Mantis on a regular basis, its seems like nothing happens and we're stalling. Its just goes from a common sense: how much time a developer should spend in order to stay in touch with Squeak? Should he go to the bug tracker each time and open each issue and read each comment to see if there any progress?
That's why i think, for anyone who not using/reading/watching Mantis on a regular basis, its seems like nothing happens and we're stalling.
We are stalling.
1. I just spend 2 months trying to earn some money. 2. Randal told me to relax on 3.11 in favour of 4.0 being more important.
All of a sudden the shit hits the proverbial fan when I have no motivation, no money and I am on holiday.
Keith
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:25:42 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Some words about Mantis.
Keith, Klaus, you are right that Maintis is useful tool for
- identifying problem (by placing a ticket)
- provide a possible fix (and discuss it in comments, whether the
provided solution good or bad) 3. finally mark it as fixed or reject it, or forgot about it and let it rot there for years.
but i see a little gap here between usual Squeak user & those who contribute to Mantis.
There is no sense of continuous process/progress, because we don't have some form of digests, which could in compressed form,
1] dial bugs.squeak.org 2] go main view "view issues" 3] click the "status" field and select, for example "testing" 4] then submit; the list is long, page through it
I'm quite sure that Keith' builder process could send/flood such reports to you inbox, in such a way that you don't even have to move your a** around ;)
What's the point Igor, that a tool like Mantis does not send you an email ? then I could not care less (!)
simply & straighly announce about latest fixes which has been approved & going into the image.
Have you overlooked the new status values that Ken added to Mantis (or so) on request of the release team?
That's why i think, for anyone who not using/reading/watching Mantis on a regular basis, its seems like nothing happens and we're stalling.
Yes "we" (in form of you) look stalled. Not going out and fetching the information that exists is indistinguishable from stalling.
Its just goes from a common sense: how much time a developer should spend in order to stay in touch with Squeak? Should he go to the bug tracker each time and open each issue and read each comment to see if there any progress?
Sould the developer go to his inbox and read an email ? what are you telling Igor ?
Okay okay, i'm taking back my rants :)
2009/7/3 Klaus D. Witzel klaus.witzel@cobss.com:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:25:42 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Some words about Mantis.
Keith, Klaus, you are right that Maintis is useful tool for
- identifying problem (by placing a ticket)
- provide a possible fix (and discuss it in comments, whether the
provided solution good or bad) 3. finally mark it as fixed or reject it, or forgot about it and let it rot there for years.
but i see a little gap here between usual Squeak user & those who contribute to Mantis.
There is no sense of continuous process/progress, because we don't have some form of digests, which could in compressed form,
1] dial bugs.squeak.org 2] go main view "view issues" 3] click the "status" field and select, for example "testing" 4] then submit; the list is long, page through it
I'm quite sure that Keith' builder process could send/flood such reports to you inbox, in such a way that you don't even have to move your a** around ;)
What's the point Igor, that a tool like Mantis does not send you an email ? then I could not care less (!)
simply & straighly announce about latest fixes which has been approved & going into the image.
Have you overlooked the new status values that Ken added to Mantis (or so) on request of the release team?
That's why i think, for anyone who not using/reading/watching Mantis on a regular basis, its seems like nothing happens and we're stalling.
Yes "we" (in form of you) look stalled. Not going out and fetching the information that exists is indistinguishable from stalling.
Its just goes from a common sense: how much time a developer should spend in order to stay in touch with Squeak? Should he go to the bug tracker each time and open each issue and read each comment to see if there any progress?
Sould the developer go to his inbox and read an email ? what are you telling Igor ?
-- "If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it". Albert Einstein
Release mailing list Release@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/release
Igor Stasenko wrote:
Okay okay, i'm taking back my rants :)
Ah, come on, we all deserve our rants occasionally ;-) We just have to keep in mind that all of us want to move Squeak forward. We may have differences in the details but I think we can all agree on the overarching goal.
Cheers, - Andreas
2009/7/3 Klaus D. Witzel klaus.witzel@cobss.com:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:25:42 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Some words about Mantis.
Keith, Klaus, you are right that Maintis is useful tool for
- identifying problem (by placing a ticket)
- provide a possible fix (and discuss it in comments, whether the
provided solution good or bad) 3. finally mark it as fixed or reject it, or forgot about it and let it rot there for years.
but i see a little gap here between usual Squeak user & those who contribute to Mantis.
There is no sense of continuous process/progress, because we don't have some form of digests, which could in compressed form,
1] dial bugs.squeak.org 2] go main view "view issues" 3] click the "status" field and select, for example "testing" 4] then submit; the list is long, page through it
I'm quite sure that Keith' builder process could send/flood such reports to you inbox, in such a way that you don't even have to move your a** around ;)
What's the point Igor, that a tool like Mantis does not send you an email ? then I could not care less (!)
simply & straighly announce about latest fixes which has been approved & going into the image.
Have you overlooked the new status values that Ken added to Mantis (or so) on request of the release team?
That's why i think, for anyone who not using/reading/watching Mantis on a regular basis, its seems like nothing happens and we're stalling.
Yes "we" (in form of you) look stalled. Not going out and fetching the information that exists is indistinguishable from stalling.
Its just goes from a common sense: how much time a developer should spend in order to stay in touch with Squeak? Should he go to the bug tracker each time and open each issue and read each comment to see if there any progress?
Sould the developer go to his inbox and read an email ? what are you telling Igor ?
-- "If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it". Albert Einstein
Release mailing list Release@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/release
Andreas Raab,
I cant see how I can contribute any further, since you have just taken over. You have made NO effort to contribute to my process and you have replaced it with a new one.
Please tell me how I can fit in with your process? Because as far as I can tell its the same process as before i.e. the one that didnt work and we sat down and thought about how to change it.
Keith
Keith Hodges wrote:
Andreas Raab,
I cant see how I can contribute any further, since you have just taken over. You have made NO effort to contribute to my process and you have replaced it with a new one.
Please tell me how I can fit in with your process? Because as far as I can tell its the same process as before i.e. the one that didnt work and we sat down and thought about how to change it.
Keith
How do I formally complain to the board?
Keith
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:25:35 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Okay okay, i'm taking back my rants :)
But if the work/usage (and existing facilities like automated status email reports) are soo invisible to you and perhaps others, what would you like to see happen?
Perhaps the "greeting" page of bugs.squeak.org can be changed so the new visitors, coming from the link on www.squeak.org (or so), immediately gets an idea of what s/he can find?
@Ken, what do you think: can the status(es) which talk about work in progress (testing) be explained by the comment on the "greeting" page.
/Klaus
2009/7/3 Klaus D. Witzel :
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:25:42 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Some words about Mantis.
Keith, Klaus, you are right that Maintis is useful tool for
- identifying problem (by placing a ticket)
- provide a possible fix (and discuss it in comments, whether the
provided solution good or bad) 3. finally mark it as fixed or reject it, or forgot about it and let it rot there for years.
but i see a little gap here between usual Squeak user & those who contribute to Mantis.
There is no sense of continuous process/progress, because we don't have some form of digests, which could in compressed form,
1] dial bugs.squeak.org 2] go main view "view issues" 3] click the "status" field and select, for example "testing" 4] then submit; the list is long, page through it
I'm quite sure that Keith' builder process could send/flood such reports to you inbox, in such a way that you don't even have to move your a** around ;)
What's the point Igor, that a tool like Mantis does not send you an email ? then I could not care less (!)
simply & straighly announce about latest fixes which has been approved & going into the image.
Have you overlooked the new status values that Ken added to Mantis (or so) on request of the release team?
That's why i think, for anyone who not using/reading/watching Mantis on a regular basis, its seems like nothing happens and we're stalling.
Yes "we" (in form of you) look stalled. Not going out and fetching the information that exists is indistinguishable from stalling.
Its just goes from a common sense: how much time a developer should spend in order to stay in touch with Squeak? Should he go to the bug tracker each time and open each issue and read each comment to see if there any progress?
Sould the developer go to his inbox and read an email ? what are you telling Igor ?
2009/7/3 Klaus D. Witzel klaus.witzel@cobss.com:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:25:35 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Okay okay, i'm taking back my rants :)
But if the work/usage (and existing facilities like automated status email reports) are soo invisible to you and perhaps others, what would you like to see happen?
Perhaps the "greeting" page of bugs.squeak.org can be changed so the new visitors, coming from the link on www.squeak.org (or so), immediately gets an idea of what s/he can find?
@Ken, what do you think: can the status(es) which talk about work in progress (testing) be explained by the comment on the "greeting" page.
That would help, for sure. I remember when this was discussed and also took part in it a little.
There's also few things i have discussed with Ken on IRC, about automatically closing very old tickets. And i don't want to argue about it anymore :) , just want to notice that such tickets could be closed with: Resolution: suspended Status: closed
i just don't like to see something left unattended for a years. And people who care, they could revisit all such tickets and reopen them again (so they will hang a little bit more ;) ), and actually this could serve as a reminder to us, that there is something left abandoned and need attention, or need to be forgotten forever.
/Klaus
2009/7/3 Klaus D. Witzel :
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:25:42 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Some words about Mantis.
Keith, Klaus, you are right that Maintis is useful tool for
- identifying problem (by placing a ticket)
- provide a possible fix (and discuss it in comments, whether the
provided solution good or bad) 3. finally mark it as fixed or reject it, or forgot about it and let it rot there for years.
but i see a little gap here between usual Squeak user & those who contribute to Mantis.
There is no sense of continuous process/progress, because we don't have some form of digests, which could in compressed form,
1] dial bugs.squeak.org 2] go main view "view issues" 3] click the "status" field and select, for example "testing" 4] then submit; the list is long, page through it
I'm quite sure that Keith' builder process could send/flood such reports to you inbox, in such a way that you don't even have to move your a** around ;)
What's the point Igor, that a tool like Mantis does not send you an email ? then I could not care less (!)
simply & straighly announce about latest fixes which has been approved & going into the image.
Have you overlooked the new status values that Ken added to Mantis (or so) on request of the release team?
That's why i think, for anyone who not using/reading/watching Mantis on a regular basis, its seems like nothing happens and we're stalling.
Yes "we" (in form of you) look stalled. Not going out and fetching the information that exists is indistinguishable from stalling.
Its just goes from a common sense: how much time a developer should spend in order to stay in touch with Squeak? Should he go to the bug tracker each time and open each issue and read each comment to see if there any progress?
Sould the developer go to his inbox and read an email ? what are you telling Igor ?
Release mailing list Release@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/release
2009/7/3 Klaus D. Witzel klaus.witzel@cobss.com:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:25:35 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Okay okay, i'm taking back my rants :)
But if the work/usage (and existing facilities like automated status email reports) are soo invisible to you and perhaps others, what would you like to see happen?
Perhaps the "greeting" page of bugs.squeak.org can be changed so the new visitors, coming from the link on www.squeak.org (or so), immediately gets an idea of what s/he can find?
@Ken, what do you think: can the status(es) which talk about work in progress (testing) be explained by the comment on the "greeting" page.
Feel free to write up an article on the subject and submit it to me. Frankly, right now I have more than enough fires to put out and this is rather low on my todo list.
Ken
P.S. for some reason I did not get Klaus' original message and it was lucky (@Ken certainly helped) that I saw this in a quoted section of Igor's reply.
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:57:17 +0200, Ken Causey wrote:
2009/7/3 Klaus D. Witzel :
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:25:35 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Okay okay, i'm taking back my rants :)
But if the work/usage (and existing facilities like automated status
reports) are soo invisible to you and perhaps others, what would you
like to
see happen?
Perhaps the "greeting" page of bugs.squeak.org can be changed so the
new
visitors, coming from the link on www.squeak.org (or so), immediately
gets
an idea of what s/he can find?
@Ken, what do you think: can the status(es) which talk about work in progress (testing) be explained by the comment on the "greeting" page.
Feel free to write up an article on the subject and submit it to me. Frankly, right now I have more than enough fires to put out and this is rather low on my todo list.
Sure, everything is low at the moment. Good luck ...
Ken
P.S. for some reason I did not get Klaus' original message and it was lucky (@Ken certainly helped) that I saw this in a quoted section of Igor's reply.
Guys, maybe you should turn a discussion in more rational plane?
I have been planning to add a feedback mechanism to MC1.5 for ages. Some method for adding comments to versions "after" they have been committed. Some means to indicate whether a version is good for anything, whether it has a bug etc.
In my opinion without that feedback mechanism in MC, MC is pretty much useless as a medium for managing, and collating proposed changes to a kernel image. MCM is also a very dry tool, when you look at an mcm in the browser it doesnt even tell you what is going to be loaded.
This is entirely different to an MC package that has a maintainer, and has undertaken to keep integrating incoming fixes. In this case the maintainer is left with the responsibility of knowing what works where and can maintain his own bug reporting and feedback mechanism.
3.9 used MC and they did nothing other than complain about it. So I dont think that using MC as an inbox is the way forward. =
The way forward as I see it is to be able to present an image with the new item completed, or almost completed. Then having captured the knowledge that you applied to make this transformation, publish that in a manner than can be used as a component in the release integration process.
So lets take an example... I want to include Rio in the kernel replacing FileDirectory. This is the use case that I have been considering all along.
I need an image to work on, and images with as many packages that may be effected as possible to test with. So I start working, I load Rio, and I start patching the system until I get something that works.
I am working in 3.11 to make a 3.11+rio , where rio is the build script that loads rio and applies patches. I am testing in 3.11-full to make a 3.11-full+rio I am testing in 3.11-dev to make a 3.11-dev+rio I am testing in 3.11-magmaserver to make a 3.11-magmaserver+rio
The results will be:
1. (un)Loadable Packages 2. ChangeSets/DS patches 3. An MC repository with all effected kernel packages saved, e.g. Providing a -rio- branch of Network etc. 3. An MC repository with all effected loadable packages saved - e.g. if I choose to port Magma to use Rio, I would have Magma versions with a rio branch that the Magma maintainer can refer to.
I publish my work as a build script/task that is able to take a base image and merge in Rio, (the advantage of a task is that it is may, in theory, be constructed so as to be resilient to variations in the image to which it is applied)
I test my build script in as several images as possible, and since it is public all the forks have a chance to try loading the new module.
So along comes a 3.12 release team member, the release team member has defined 3.12 as:
3.12 = 3.11 + latest + fixes + closures + namespaces
This build is performed and tested by bob on a regular basis, each part of the process is being worked upon by a different volunteer. he can include my new revolutionary change by applying my build script, a combination of CS/DS and loaded packages.
3.12 = 3.11 + latest + fixes + closures + namespaces + rio
However, since the build team have made the build process publically available long before it was complete I would have already made a
3.12-rio = 3.12 + rio
So to move forward... begin by proposing a project that we want, and get working, publish the results in a manner which can be applied as a component in a larger build process, or multiple build processes in use by different forks.
So...
Project 1. Atomic loading (entirely loadable as a package) Project 2. Anyone for fixing the changes file limit? Project 3. Annex FileDirectory Project 4. Replace ChangeSets with DS.
Keith
Andreas,
sorry this is not an acceptable excuse, your proposal directly competes with my work. My work is primarily the development of a philosophical ideal, its not about a single image. I was looking forward to your support and assistence, not your competition.
3.11 as accepted by the board was a proposal to work towards "A new process for squeak development" for the whole community of squeak users, and aiming to be inclusive for all forks of squeak.
What you have just proposed amounts to the same thing, "a process for squeak development for the community at large", as you say not just the release team.
So now we have a your proposal to manage things with MC, before we have even reorganised the image to be in approprate packages. That is one of the goals of 3.11 to perform that reorganisation. Hopefully allowing modules to be managed outside of the code, with better defined interfaces.
Until then I have proposed that automating submission testing via Mantis is the way forward, and I know you have worked out how that is supposed to work. So I don't understand what you mean about being confused as to how to contribute.
So the board has to decide whether or not it supports managing changes to the kernel in mantis, or in some MC repo, according to an organisation that doesnt yet exist.
So at this point in time, we are competely hosed.
People following you will start contributing random stuff to some new repo that you have created without any discussion, or explanation. You have just instituted a new entity, that of "core-dev", some mythical future beast that is in charge of deciding what goes in and out of the image, and we are back to square one.
Let me reiterate, your excuse that this is for the squeak community accross the board, doesn't wash because that is exactly what 3.11 new process is designed for.
Keith
Keith -
The difficulty here is that I'm not even sure what you're after. I have been specifically trying to avoid any impression of competing with your work, integrating it at every step of the way for many of the same purposes that I understand you have in mind for it. For example, part of the plan (as stated in my post) is to use Installer and Bob to transfer submissions from Mantis into the community repository. If I understand it correctly, this is exactly what you had in mind.
I certainly don't feel like competing with you. All I am trying to do is to open the doors for contributions.
Cheers, - Andreas
Keith Hodges wrote:
Andreas,
sorry this is not an acceptable excuse, your proposal directly competes with my work. My work is primarily the development of a philosophical ideal, its not about a single image. I was looking forward to your support and assistence, not your competition.
3.11 as accepted by the board was a proposal to work towards "A new process for squeak development" for the whole community of squeak users, and aiming to be inclusive for all forks of squeak.
What you have just proposed amounts to the same thing, "a process for squeak development for the community at large", as you say not just the release team.
So now we have a your proposal to manage things with MC, before we have even reorganised the image to be in approprate packages. That is one of the goals of 3.11 to perform that reorganisation. Hopefully allowing modules to be managed outside of the code, with better defined interfaces.
Until then I have proposed that automating submission testing via Mantis is the way forward, and I know you have worked out how that is supposed to work. So I don't understand what you mean about being confused as to how to contribute.
So the board has to decide whether or not it supports managing changes to the kernel in mantis, or in some MC repo, according to an organisation that doesnt yet exist.
So at this point in time, we are competely hosed.
People following you will start contributing random stuff to some new repo that you have created without any discussion, or explanation. You have just instituted a new entity, that of "core-dev", some mythical future beast that is in charge of deciding what goes in and out of the image, and we are back to square one.
Let me reiterate, your excuse that this is for the squeak community accross the board, doesn't wash because that is exactly what 3.11 new process is designed for.
Keith _______________________________________________ Release mailing list Release@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/release
release@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andreas Raab -
Igor Stasenko -
Keith Hodges -
Ken Causey -
Klaus D. Witzel