Sorry alexander

you miss my point, my point is not about the process of harvesting. My 
point is about
recording in executable manner knowledge about the system. This is not 
linked to any bureaucratic
mechanism. People are crying that there is no documentation about 
squeak, then they build big plans,
then NOTHING happens but they talked and talked and talked. While 
writing a 1 min test is a small
but a real tangible step in that direction, and in addition I can 
understand it.

Have a look at the test of UUID, you do not need to be an expert to 
understand them and everybody can write
tests like that.

Just for your information, I started to harvest without BFAV and this 
is a HUGE improvement.
Still, just uploading a single file in the update stream is painful, 
marcus is working on that.
We have to check conflict, updload file, rename cs...

Now people can talk hours about x or float precision, if at the end we 
do not get
code with tests, then we all lost our time.

> Hash: SHA1
> Although I'm on a strict eMail diet I can't resist to write a short 
> note:
>
> Did you ever play the Infocom game ``Bureaucracy, A Paranoid Fantasy''
> (written by Douglas Adams)? Sometimes I think the harvesting process
> is a remake of that textadventure. "Tag it with [ZORK], compress it
> with KNORTZ but never with KNORZT and send it to the BFAV. Then ..."
> You can't blame people for not loving bureaucracy. If the harvesting
> is not working than it is the process that is flawed!
>
> To be a bit more positive here just a quick thought that may or may
> not work:
>
> How about we move all the bug reports, fixes and suggestions for
> enhancements to the mantis server? Then a casy study could be like this
>
> - - user creates a new report with the serverity *feature*
> (=enhancement)  describes the enhancement and attaches the code. Now
> the user knows that his thingy got registered somewhere and does not
> silently dissapear in a mail archive....
>
> - - harverster looks at this entry later on, sees that no test is
> included and puts this report on hold (=feedback) and adds form Z9 to
> the report
>
> Z9:
> "Your enhancement was put on hold because we decided to only accept
> new enhancement if they include a minimal test. Look here for an easy
> HowTo for writing unit tests and ...." (this gets automagically mailed
> to the reporter)

It may work.

>
> - - user reads the mail and now knows that somebody looked at his
> stuff(!) and that there is a problem. If he cares about the thingy I
> bet he will go the extra mile and provide a test.
>
> - - next harvester sees that there is now a test for the enhancement,
> changes the status of the report to whatever, test the thingy and can
> add a note that appoves or declines it
>
> I think when to reject or to hold a report should be briefly layed out
> in some kind of policy doc that should be agreed on once (by the
> harvesters?) and placed on a swiki for public notice.

We said that several times, already.

> A sender of a mail that shows up in the mailing list with a subject
> tagged with [(ENH|FIX|BUG|GOODIE)] should get (once) an auto reply
> which tells him to use mantis. This auto reply should of course
> include form Z9'.
>
> Alex
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> iD8DBQFBTA8rYiF2wSTEZ9gRAgPcAJ9odFI4Ncu2NSb8xAAhl/VwkpvKpgCdGajn
> 4b8AQ1BBSCREfCXxCwhpheM=
> =2qsb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>