3dot11?
Jimmie Houchin
j.squeak at cyberhaus.us
Tue Jul 3 20:33:46 UTC 2007
Giovanni Corriga wrote:
> Il giorno lun, 02/07/2007 alle 19.19 +0200, Philippe Marschall ha
> scritto:
>> 2007/7/2, Michael Rueger <michael at impara.de>:
>>> Damien Cassou wrote:
>>>
>>>> What about a 100% free access to the official repository? Everyone
>>> Oh, you mean software development by anarchy?
>>>
>>> Great idea...
>> Yeah, works pretty well for Seaside. A Squeak package several people
>> make a living of.
>
> As Philippe is saying, the idea isn't as bad as it may sound.
>
> Obviously this doens't mean that anyone can create "official" updates
> and releases - only someone from the release team would be allowed to do
> that.
> Many open source projects allow people to commit to the repository, but
> the official packages get created by the project manager/owner.
>
> We could also agree to a compromise and allow access to the repos to a
> larger group of developers, without moving to 100% free access.
>
> Having a more open approach could streamline the bug fixing/harvesting
> process: instead of attaching a patch file to a mantis bug, reporters
> and developers could just point to a package in the repository.
And the nice thing is, is that it doesn't have to be an either/or
proposition. A "chaotic" repository can be opened up and access granted
as desired by the repository creator/owner. Possibly using some of the
squeak people rankings. Apprentice is able to submit code/fixes,
journeyer and up commit code/fixes. An apprentice's code/fix would need
to be approved by those with commit privileges.
Possibly as Giovanni suggests with certain committers having a type of
stewardship over an area of the code base.
If such works, great. If not, what is the harm in trying. In the end it
would seem those who prefer the current or a previous process are still
at liberty to pursue said process, concurrently with the chaotic
process. They can be done in parallel.
Worst case, we try, we fail.
We've done that before, survived, kept going.
But we could learn that we can manage the process like that, and
prosper. It doesn't have to be a perfect process, just one that is
better than the current one. We won't know until we try. We can tweak
and massage the process and improve it as we go. Let's be agile. ;)
It has been mentioned that Seaside isn't a good example because the
community is small and the number of committers to the codebase is
small. The active, participating, code committing users of the Squeak
community is also not large and should be reasonably manageable. This
mailing list is open, yet only a small fraction of those who subscribe
actually participate. Look who participates in the voting process. Those
involved in this process are people who are relatively known to each other.
I believe there are people who are qualified anxiously awaiting genuine
opportunity to contribute, but may not have found their place or
opportunity. You never know, I might find a typo, submit a fix, and find
me a place of immortality. ;)
Any way, it doesn't have to replace the 3.10 process. It can be done in
parallel if desired. We could learn something about the process and
about the community. Nice thing is, it doesn't really require anybody's
permission either. A community member can step up. Set up the
repository. Set up the submit/commit structure as desired. It can be
community sponsored and organically grown. If successful, it could then
become the official and default method of Squeak development.
'nuff rambling. Just wanted to toss that out there.
I like Squeak. I would love to see Squeak fulfill its potential in every
direction that somebody wants to take it. I might be active in working
on the web side of things, but I might be a user of the multimedia side
of things. Others quite the reverse. Let's encourage Squeak to be all it
can be. But its up to us to take it there.
I know, just when I said 'nuff rambling. ;)
Jimmie
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|