On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 04:16:57PM -0400, Chris Becker wrote:
> You are impugning the decisions of those who build the standard
> distribution, and this is precisely what I addressed. You reiterate in your
> last email:
> 
> >The situation I'm talking about is that their
> >*IS* code out there - just not in the image. I'm not
> >criticizing the amount of development for Squeak
> >(I have no right to do so), I'm just point out
> >that there seems to be certain "inhibitors" in
> >the release process that results in less high-quality
> >Squeak enhancements being in the image than is
> >desirable.
> 
> Once again, you purport to know what's best for everyone. Would you like to
> be the Arbiter of Quality for Squeak? I'm sure everyone involved in the
> release would love to have some help.
> 

"impugning the decisions of those who build the standard distribution". I
have to admit, I had to look that "impugning" thing up, and the dictionary
told me: "challenge, express doubt about (a statement, quality, etc..)"

Why not call it "Bug report"? Every bug that get's reported is critique,
but thankfully everyone realised that reporting bugs is a *good* thing. 
We want bugreports, even without a bugfix. Because most of the time a bug
is obvious to someone else. 

We should treat bugs "outside of the code" in the same way, e.g. the procedures 
of how Squeak is put together, or how we work together: If someone
thinks there is a problem, please say so. Even if there is no obvious fix.

And all squeakers should treat those Meta-bugs the same way as codebugs:
Welcome them! Critisism is good, and there is no progress possible without.

        Marcus



-- 
Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de  -- Squeak! http://squeakland.org