Current Harvesting Status/Organization

Doug Way dway at mailcan.com
Tue Jun 21 16:38:27 UTC 2005


Hi Ken, sorry to respond to this a few weeks late.

Hopefully your questions are partly answered by the V3.9 Team progress
report which I posted to the list yesterday.  More below...

On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:10:59 -0500, "Ken Causey" <ken at kencausey.com>
said:
> I'm wondering what the current status is of the harvesting process from
> the standpoint of the harvesters.  I'm a little bit bothered by the most
> recent addition to 3.9alpha.  Judging from the HTTP info
> 6667TallySupport-ab.cs went into the update stream on the 22nd or 23rd.
> For some reason this update has no preamble although the versions both
> in BFAV (closed by the Janitors) and with the issue (ID 1014) on Mantis
> have preambles.  Also the issue on Mantis is still marked as new and
> there is no evidence that harvesting (beyond the review step) is
> occurring regarding this issue.

Yes, there hasn't been much direction lately in terms of harvesting,
partly my fault as I am probably still technically "in charge" of
harvesting.  But this is also due to shifting to a partitioned package
model for 3.9alpha as described in the V3.9 progress report.

Once the new package model is in place, we can get back to getting
harvesting up to speed again.

I'm not sure if I can lead the harvesting process effort in addition to
working on the V3.9 process, we may either want to form an additional
team for that, or see if the Janitors can take over that role.

Some of this is related to Mantis.  I think the only big problem with
Mantis right now is that its UI is outside of Squeak.  It might not
actually be *too* hard to get it running in Squeak simply by making some
fixes/enhancements to Scamper so that it can be used via the Scamper
browser.  Then we can add UI goodies such as "browsing code" directly on
a changeset file in Mantis.  I believe the only issues with Scamper are
getting html tables to display (doesn't have to be perfect), and
supporting the kind of form posting which Mantis does.  Or, a special
Squeak Mantis client could be written separate from Scamper, although
that sounds like more work.  If a team or temporary group could be
formed to work on this, that would be great.  Any interest?

> I realize we are in a highly transitional time here and that as a result
> there may be some confusion, but even if we don't have solid stated
> procedures I would hope that anyone modifying the update stream will
> make some effort to maintain a minimum level of documentation regarding
> the handling of each issue.

Agreed.  Although this changes somewhat if we are updating packages via
Monticello rather than using changesets.  We'll have to see if we can
get an equivalent level of documentation.

> Admittedly I'm complaining here a little bit.  But more than anything I
> would really like to have a bit better understanding of how updates will
> be entering the update stream in near future and what sort of changes,
> if any, those doing that work would like to see in the process.
> 
> Very shortly I want to state publicly that in my opinion the future of
> Squeak progress is in the form of individuals and teams taking direct
> responsibility for packages and parts of the image.  I think that anyone
> who has an interest in doing this should not wait and should speak up
> ASAP.

On the plus side, the new partitioned image will be a big step in that
direction.

- Doug



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list