hi ken

I do not know exactly what happened there. What I can tell you is: - all the changeset are publickly available on the KCP page http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3257 - we would love to have reviewers - something the kcp items stuff deep down stuff and we got a bit some parallel development so it may happens that we got some problems. - but there is nothing magic we try to send all the changes to the list, even if this slows us down regularly. Stef

On 29 févr. 04, at 23:55, Ken Causey wrote:

Göran has been doing some excellent detective work related to my reported issue with code corrections in the workspace. He has tracked it down to a change made in update 5700 (KCP136MoveChangesLog). The change does not seem to be related to the purpose of the changeset. This is bad enough but what really bothers me is that there doesn't seem to have been any opportunity to review this change. I've searched and searched and searched and it doesn't appear that this changeset ever appeared on the lists. A variant number 116 did and was closed.

What happened? Is there some other route that KCP changes go through?

Ken

Ken Causey wrote:

Göran has been doing some excellent detective work related to my reported issue with code corrections in the workspace. He has tracked it down to a change made in update 5700 (KCP136MoveChangesLog). The change does not seem to be related to the purpose of the changeset. This is bad enough but what really bothers me is that there doesn't seem to have been any opportunity to review this change. I've searched and searched and searched and it doesn't appear that this changeset ever appeared on the lists. A variant number 116 did and was closed.

What happened? Is there some other route that KCP changes go through?

What happened can be mostly traced back to this message:

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2004-February/073463....

Basically, a bunch of inter-related KCP changesets were approved as a group in one email thread ([KCP][ENH] KCP-0160-SystemChangeNotif). This was easier in some ways than posting them all separately and approving them all separately, since they really needed to be evaluated as a group.

I agree that that makes it harder to track down where that particular changeset came from, though.

Actually, what I should have done while incorporating these is associate each of these changesets with the BFAV thread they came from (KCP-0160-...), so that there would have been a series of update messages like this:

[KCP][ENH] KCP-0160-SystemChangeNotif ([update - 5698]) [KCP][ENH] KCP-0160-SystemChangeNotif ([update - 5699]) [KCP][ENH] KCP-0160-SystemChangeNotif ([update - 5700]) etc.

So then you would have seen the appropriate history in the BFAV. I'll try to do this in the future if there are any multiple-changeset approved posts.

- Doug