Package success rate could be automated, and sending a report back to
SqueakMap with various versions and system info. This info can then be both
browseable and automatically checked by SqueakMap to confirm
compatibility/etc.

-lyndon

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hannes Hirzel" <hirzel at spw.unizh.ch>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [RANT] Come on people! ;)


> Blake wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:09:30 +0200, <goran.krampe at bluefish.se> wrote:
>
> > The fact that so many wouldn't install was perplexing, because I
> > specifically didn't try to install any of the (many) packages SqueakMap
> > said weren't suitable for 3.7. But I'd sometimes get an error message
> > after that which suggested a version mismatch.
>
> If you install a large number of packages chances that you get errors
> rise as there are not yet integration testing prcedures established.
>
> Currently we are at a 'cut and try' level in this area. People download
> a basic or full image and try installing what works.
> Sometime a package works for a newer version without a problem even if
> it is not listed as such. In that case it is a good idea to inform the
> author (see SqueakMap) so that he can tag his package accordingly.
>
> > It looks like SqueakMap is evolving, though, so I'm not going to focus
> > on  that, except to ask if there shouldn't be a "graveyward" category
> > for the  projects that don't work with the latest version.
>
> Göran has raised the idea here several times on the list that he would
> like to implement a function where people could post configurations
> (assembly lists of packages which worked for them), so that other people
> see what happesn.
>
> > My next question is whether there is someone going through the packages
> > and testing the abandoned ones for "rot"? And: should there be? If so,
> > that might be another thing I can do. (I've already volunteered to help
> > Goran with the newsletter.)
>
>
> Great. Surely a point of departure is testing the 3.8gamma image and see
> what loads and what not. And then work on getting more packages
> succeed for example by posting lists here of packages which do not work.
>
> Sometimes only very minor effort is needed to make a package compatibel
> with 3.8g  oder 3.9a and people already have made quick fixes for
> themselves.
>
> Thank you for your initiative.
>
> Hannes
>
>
>
>
>