> I think we should all take a deep breath and get constructive.  
> Let's see
> what we have:
>
> 1. We do have a 3.9a with PIs covering the image. That is a good  
> start,
> regardless how those PIs are.
>
> 2. We have Marcus and Stephane struggling with using MC to prepare a
> release and how to recieve MCs in an inbox and integrate. It is  
> actually
> good - because they are learning things during this struggle. ;)  
> Exactly
> what comes out of it we will see - but I consider this to be the  
> process
> of "release integration" and it actually doesn't stop the rest of us
> from doing good work. They are simply trying to figure out how a  
> Release
> Team (we use that concept, remember?) should work.

Indeed I think that we are going in the right direction.

>
> 3. Ken and I want to start getting Steward teams running. We  
> thought the
> best way is "by example". So we picked "Network" as our piece of the
> puzzle. I went ahead and registered it on SM:
>
>     http://map1.squeakfoundation.org/sm/packagebyname/Network
>
>     - Note that I am the owner (=Steward Team Leader) and Ken is a
> co-maintainer (=Team member).
>     - Note the PackageInfo name, "Network". This means tools can  
> map all
> the code in the package to this SM package and thus to us and our  
> emails
> etc.
>
> I have the last few days been pulling up the SqueakMap code and
> refreshing it to a 3.7 image, latest KomHttpServer, HV etc and also
> adding server side support for Kabungu, server side cache (!),  
> branching
> of releases (!), and a bunch of other smaller things like package
> transferral etc. Coming soon to box2. :) But...

Goran I'm really interested in Kabungu.
Will it be possible to use it to manage MC packages because this is  
what I need :).
Building flexible/powerful configMaps

> I am also adding three new "fields" on SMPackage:
>
>     - feedbackEmail, this is an email address that people can send  
> error
> reports, changesets, gratulations or even .mcz's to.
>     - repository, this is meant to point to an MC repo that is the  
> dev repo
> of the package.
>     - repositoryInbox, this is meant to point to a drop place  
> inside the
> repository above in which .mcz's can be dropped by anyone.

This is good.
As soon as alex is done with his PhD I would like that we work on the  
package
comment, license..... at the PI level, apparently michal was looking  
at what we started:
the idea is to have a really powerful package


> Next step for Ken and me is to register a project on either
> Squeaksource.com or source.squeakfoundation.org. Whichever. Then (when
> the new SM is in place) we can point to that repo and even throw in an
> email address in the feedbackEmail above.
>
> At that point we are *all se*t for nice tool extensions making the  
> life
> of the average Squeaker better. I have already written code that  
> adds a
> menu choice in the changesorters saying "send to package  
> maintainers" -
> but we could now change it to "send to package team" (and use the
> feedbackEmail). And Monticello could easily add a similar choice for
> using the two other fields above.
>
> This should make it trivial for regular Squeakers to feed the Steward
> teams with goodness fixes and enhs. So... how does Mantis enter the
> picture? Not sure, Ken has thoughts on that - I am fine with having
> multiple routes here. If someone goes to Mantis - goodie. If someone
> just fires an email to the Steward team, or drops an mcz - fine  
> too. Ken
> probably has other opinions but I like the ability to be direct.
>
> Finally the Steward teams are meant to feed the Release Team (people
> still say Harvesters - but as you can see that role is more or less  
> gone
> when we get more and more Steward teams) with mcz's that they can
> integrate into a nice healthy image and do drop releases of that image
> much like Marcus does today, which I actually think is a good way - it
> is a trivial way of creating regular baselines that the Steward teams
> can track.
>
> Now, the idea was not to post about this until Ken and I had learned
> more :), but I couldn't help it. What do you guys think?
>
> My prediction is that the above scheme can work (but my trackrecord
> sucks in this area :)) - and that we slowly will be getting Steward
> teams stepping up and gaining members. One step at a time. We now  
> have a
> Network Team (and any of you network guys, email me and I will add you
> as co-maintainers if I trust ya :) ) and I bet at least one more  
> team is
> willing to follow us, right?

we will see. I think that we should really see people doing stuff  
together.

> If you think (allright damnit, I am following that crazy chap!) then
> start by registering the team on SM (use the exact same name as the PI
> name in 3.9, and don't forget to enter that in PackageInfo name too).
>
> Note bug: If it says "package info name already taken" - it is a dead
> silly bug, just clear it, save, enter it again, and save. ;)
>
> Ken and I think that we then should use source.squeakfoundation.org as
> the "default place" for these repos - and you can't create one there
> without the admin helping you - so it is a bit of a showstopper at  
> this
> moment. But give us a few days to get more admins in line.
>
> regards, Göran
>
>