Convincing a harvester (was on SqF list)

Cees de Groot cg at cdegroot.com
Wed May 7 06:50:00 UTC 2003


On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 08:41, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> Now I would not like that everything gets automatically accepted before 
> we have serious tests
> to check that people are not breaking what other are doing.

Well, I wasn't exactly arguing for *everything* from *everyone*. I was
arguing more along the lines of:
- A group of people with good standing in the community proposes a
largish refactoring project;
- They outline some sort of vision;
- The community declares it is happy with that vision;
- The results are automatically harvested. 
Yes, some sort of barrier to enter into the auto-harvesting process must
be in place. It would be ludicrous to accept patches from me without
prior review. But if there's a project, and especially if there's a
project done by a *group* of people who I assume:
- Work together;
- Don't want to look like a bunch of fools;
I'd assume that this group would make sure that they put only the
quality bits into the update stream, and would *voluntarily* ask the
community for feedback if they are unsure about patches. 

Communities scale by means of trust, and nothing else.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20030507/4476683a/attachment.pgp


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list