Re: Handling fixes/enhancements (was Re: Possible extra text for Welcome

I've just been trying to review the process for harvesting and reveiwing
fixes. It all seems a bit confused right now. There's the sqfixes
page(s)on http://209.143.91.36/super/415  and various pages pointed to
from there but much is out of date. For a start I can hardly bundle up
stuff I've reviewed and email it to SqC anymore can I?

Perhaps I've missed stuff whilst I had my head down trying to update the
VMMaker codebase? Given some fix or enh or whatever that I've reveiwed
and would like to promote, what is the current best process?

tim
-- 
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Don't sweat petty things....or pet sweaty things.
From [email protected] Mon Mar 24 20:22:12 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 9087 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2003 20:22:12 -0000
Received: from mail.blackboard.com (HELO wilson.dc.Blackboard.com)
	(64.124.103.135)
	by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 24 Mar 2003 20:22:12 -0000
Received: from monroe.dc.Blackboard.com ([10.8.0.114]) by
	wilson.dc.Blackboard.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779);
	Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:21:59 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was Re:
	Possibleextra text for Welcome
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:21:58 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was Re:
	Possibleextra text for Welcome
Thread-Index: AcLyQhlzV730YIIPQ/q2ZiwUE3EpwwAAI5vQ
From: "Brent Vukmer" <[email protected]>
To: "Discussing the Squeak Foundation"
	<[email protected]>
Return-Path: [email protected]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2003 20:21:59.0775 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[06088EF0:01C2F243]
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:22:12 -0000

Tim --

The "Commenting Bugs and Fixes" page is up-to-date ( and fairly clear =
thanks to Joshua Gargus ): http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3103


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Rowledge [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was Re:
Possibleextra text for Welcome


I've just been trying to review the process for harvesting and reveiwing
fixes. It all seems a bit confused right now. There's the sqfixes
page(s)on http://209.143.91.36/super/415  and various pages pointed to
from there but much is out of date. For a start I can hardly bundle up
stuff I've reviewed and email it to SqC anymore can I?

Perhaps I've missed stuff whilst I had my head down trying to update the
VMMaker codebase? Given some fix or enh or whatever that I've reveiwed
and would like to promote, what is the current best process?

tim
--=20
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Don't sweat petty things....or pet sweaty things.
_______________________________________________
Squeakfoundation mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Mon Mar 24 20:31:37 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 23808 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2003 20:31:37 -0000
Received: from mail.blackboard.com (HELO wilson.dc.Blackboard.com)
	(64.124.103.135)
	by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 24 Mar 2003 20:31:37 -0000
Received: from monroe.dc.Blackboard.com ([10.8.0.114]) by
	wilson.dc.Blackboard.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779);
	Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:31:28 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was
	Re:Possibleextra text for Welcome
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:31:28 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was
	Re:Possibleextra text for Welcome
Thread-Index: AcLyQhlzV730YIIPQ/q2ZiwUE3EpwwAAI5vQAABaT5A=
From: "Brent Vukmer" <[email protected]>
To: "Discussing the Squeak Foundation"
	<[email protected]>
Return-Path: [email protected]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2003 20:31:28.0981 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[594E8050:01C2F244]
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:31:37 -0000

The qualifier may make that comment sound snarky -- sorry, Joshua. =20

s/fairly clear/*clear*

-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Vukmer=20
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:22 PM
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was
Re:Possibleextra text for Welcome


Tim --

The "Commenting Bugs and Fixes" page is up-to-date ( and fairly clear =
thanks to Joshua Gargus ): http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3103


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Rowledge [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was Re:
Possibleextra text for Welcome


I've just been trying to review the process for harvesting and reveiwing
fixes. It all seems a bit confused right now. There's the sqfixes
page(s)on http://209.143.91.36/super/415  and various pages pointed to
from there but much is out of date. For a start I can hardly bundle up
stuff I've reviewed and email it to SqC anymore can I?

Perhaps I've missed stuff whilst I had my head down trying to update the
VMMaker codebase? Given some fix or enh or whatever that I've reveiwed
and would like to promote, what is the current best process?

tim
--=20
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Don't sweat petty things....or pet sweaty things.
_______________________________________________
Squeakfoundation mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
_______________________________________________
Squeakfoundation mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Mon Mar 24 21:28:21 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 8524 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2003 21:28:21 -0000
Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (204.127.198.39)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 24 Mar 2003 21:28:21 -0000
Received: from goldskin.attbi.com
	(12-234-54-55.client.attbi.com[12.234.54.55])
	by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP
	id <20030324212819053005kjthe>; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:28:19 +0000
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:39:28 -0800
From: Tim Rowledge <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was Re:
	Possibleextra text for Welcome
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Messenger-Pro/2.60a (MsgServe/2.00g) (RISC-OS/4.02)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:28:21 -0000

"Brent Vukmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim --
> 
> The "Commenting Bugs and Fixes" page is up-to-date ( and fairly clear thanks to Joshua Gargus ): http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3103
It is indeed reasonably clear for the purpose of submitting bugs, fixes
etc but it doesn't help me much with my work as a harvester and guide.
I know I can simply post an approving comment with the [et] etc tags but
at some point there has to be a place where more happens.

What is the status of a better set of tools for all this?

tim

-- 
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Use IF...ELSE  IF...ELSE  IF...ELSE...  to implement multi-way branches.
From [email protected] Mon Mar 24 21:45:33 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 688 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2003 21:45:32 -0000
Received: from sark.cc.gatech.edu (130.207.7.23)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 24 Mar 2003 21:45:32 -0000
Received: from gaia.cc.gatech.edu (gaia.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.8])
	by sark.cc.gatech.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2OLjVlF007821
	for <[email protected]>;
	Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:45:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from schwa@localhost)
	by gaia.cc.gatech.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) id h2OLjUa8015693
	for [email protected];
	Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:45:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:45:30 -0500
From: "Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus" <[email protected]>
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was
	Re:Possibleextra text for Welcome
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To:
	<[email protected]>; from
	[email protected] on Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:31:28PM -0500
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:45:33 -0000

On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:31:28PM -0500, Brent Vukmer wrote:
> The qualifier may make that comment sound snarky -- sorry, Joshua.  

"Fairly clear" is fine; it's not the best writing I've ever churned out.

Besides, I didn't even notice until I saw your apology.  Then I had to 
read farther to figure out what you were apologizing for :-)

Joshua


> 
> s/fairly clear/*clear*
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent Vukmer 
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:22 PM
> To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
> Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was
> Re:Possibleextra text for Welcome
> 
> 
> Tim --
> 
> The "Commenting Bugs and Fixes" page is up-to-date ( and fairly clear thanks to Joshua Gargus ): http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3103
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Rowledge [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:11 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements (was Re:
> Possibleextra text for Welcome
> 
> 
> I've just been trying to review the process for harvesting and reveiwing
> fixes. It all seems a bit confused right now. There's the sqfixes
> page(s)on http://209.143.91.36/super/415  and various pages pointed to
> from there but much is out of date. For a start I can hardly bundle up
> stuff I've reviewed and email it to SqC anymore can I?
> 
> Perhaps I've missed stuff whilst I had my head down trying to update the
> VMMaker codebase? Given some fix or enh or whatever that I've reveiwed
> and would like to promote, what is the current best process?
> 
> tim
> -- 
> Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Don't sweat petty things....or pet sweaty things.
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Tue Mar 25 00:57:23 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 6227 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 00:57:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lucy.riskmetrics.com) (12.3.62.14)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 00:57:23 -0000
Received: from riskmetrics.com (w018.z064003232.det-mi.dsl.cnc.net
	[64.3.232.18]) by lucy.riskmetrics.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet
	Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21)
	id GZW8TQPV; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:50:14 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:56:56 -0500
From: Doug Way <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation 
 <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Squeakfoundation]Final steps for harvesting
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:57:23 -0000


As discussed earlier, I think we are ready to start incorporating fixes &
small enhancements from the SQFIXES page ( http://swiki.gsug.org:8080/SQFIXES/
) into 3.6alpha, even though we still need to discuss the larger items which
will make up 3.6.

The process for entering and tagging submissions looks pretty good.  I want to
nail down the final steps of the process, so that we can start moving stuff
into the update stream.

For incorporating [FIX]es, we agreed that the fix needs to be approved by one
Harvester.  (Harvester meaning a Guide, a member of SqC, or a harvesting
volunteer from the original list of harvesters.  Hmm, I need to contact the
people on that list to see who is still interested.)

To make things clear, the harvester should use a special keyword (which we
should agree on now) such as "[approved]" in the parentheses of the SQFIXES
entry.  That way I can do a simple search on the SQFIXES page to check for
recently approved items.

After an item has been approved, one thing that we still want is a chance for
other harvesters (and perhaps anyone else) to note that the item is about to
go into the update stream, and voice any last minute opposition or
refinements.  For example, "Wait a second, we don't want to just change
frobozz like that... that could cause problems for this other doohickey."

With the previous harvesting process, each harvester had to submit a .zip file
of a bundle of harvested changes to a largish list of people, which provided a
convenient sort of last-minute screening for things.  In theory, we could do
something similar with submitting bundles to this SqF list, but that seems a
bit too heavyweight for me.  Perhaps we should just allow a certain amount of
time to pass (say, at least 3 days) after an item has been approved, before it
gets added to the update stream.  This will give people a chance to say "Hey
wait a minute".  However, this requires that harvesters do a reasonable job of
tracking the SQFIXES page on a semi-regular basis to see what new stuff is
about to go in, rather than having a summary conveniently arrive in an email. 
But I think this is probably workable.

Another thing I should probably do is add one last tag/keyword to SQFIXES
entries which are being added to the update stream.  It could be ([update]) or
something like that.  (The 3 day delay could happen between [approved] and
[update], or it could happen between adding the [update] tag and actually
adding the fix to the update stream.  Hmm, probably the former makes more
sense.)  Realistically, I may only incorporate things into the update stream
once per week or so, so the delay could vary from 3-10 days or something like
that.  But that's still a pretty decent turnaround compared to what we have
now.

Yet one more issue is whether we want to have stricter standards for
[ENH]ancements.  We talked about requiring approval from two harvesters.  Or
perhaps approval from one harvester, plus an [et] from any other third party
would suffice.  Hmm.  (I suppose one drawback of having stricter standards is
that people might be tempted to call something a fix which is really more of
an enhancement.)

(I guess this post doesn't cover the issue of whether any of the [sl], [er],
etc., tags should be mandatory before an item is approved by a harvester. 
Certainly any such tags should make it more likely that an item will be
seriously looked at.  I'd say we could probably get started incorporating
stuff without requiring mandatory tags, and figure out which ones really need
to be mandatory after going through the process for a little while.  Probably
[et] and [er] should be required, at least, although the harvester could
supply those tags upon approval, if no one else does.)

Anyway, we can try something like I outlined above.  Does this all sound
reasonable?  The only thing I'm still not sure about is whether we want
stricter standards for enhancements.

- Doug Way


p.s. Once this is sorted out, I do need to update the various harvesting web
pages that Tim mentioned.  And yes, a fancier harvesting system will be coming
eventually, but probably not for a while.
From [email protected] Tue Mar 25 01:24:23 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 9983 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 01:24:23 -0000
Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.24)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 01:24:23 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.97.232]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec  6 2002))
 with SMTPA id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected]; Tue,
 25 Mar 2003 03:24:15 +0200 (IST)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 01:44:15 +0300
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.5174
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 01:24:24 -0000

Well, the idea is that as a harvester/Guide you can also add a comment
"approved" when you think it's fit to go (based on whatever evidence has
accumulated). Before you do that, you should review everything people
actually said (open up all those mails) and maybe critique the content
of what people said - that's the way we have to make sure things get
reviewed in a way we can trust in the future.

Basically, unless Doug decides to be extra suspicous (his prerogative)
or someone else objects, that should be all it takes for Doug to roll it
in as an update.

Daniel

Tim Rowledge <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Brent Vukmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Tim --
> > 
> > The "Commenting Bugs and Fixes" page is up-to-date ( and fairly clear thanks to Joshua Gargus ): http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3103
> It is indeed reasonably clear for the purpose of submitting bugs, fixes
> etc but it doesn't help me much with my work as a harvester and guide.
> I know I can simply post an approving comment with the [et] etc tags but
> at some point there has to be a place where more happens.
> 
> What is the status of a better set of tools for all this?
> 
> tim
> 
> -- 
> Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Use IF...ELSE  IF...ELSE  IF...ELSE...  to implement multi-way branches.
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Tue Mar 25 02:00:12 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 24092 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 02:00:12 -0000
Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.21)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 02:00:12 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.97.232]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec  6 2002))
 with SMTPA id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected]; Tue,
 25 Mar 2003 04:00:02 +0200 (IST)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 03:53:04 +0300
From: Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Final steps for harvesting
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.5174
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:00:13 -0000

I think we should go with this process as outlined, without any
additional rules for ENH nor making any specific tags mandatory.

BUT - let all Harvesters note that we need this process to improve. And
people are simply not fooled (for long) by mere statements, they track
implemented policy. The extent to which we prefer simple stuff with
proper tags, and require the tags to mean something, will determine
community participation in the review process.

The only reason to not require reviewers is because a submission is so
simple and well prepared that its goodness is self evident. If you want
to include something because you like the functionality, despite it not
having enough tags or being as simple as it should, avoid the temptation
to "just do it" - instead solicit reviewers on the list. 


Daniel

Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> As discussed earlier, I think we are ready to start incorporating fixes &
> small enhancements from the SQFIXES page ( http://swiki.gsug.org:8080/SQFIXES/
> ) into 3.6alpha, even though we still need to discuss the larger items which
> will make up 3.6.
> 
> The process for entering and tagging submissions looks pretty good.  I want to
> nail down the final steps of the process, so that we can start moving stuff
> into the update stream.
> 
> For incorporating [FIX]es, we agreed that the fix needs to be approved by one
> Harvester.  (Harvester meaning a Guide, a member of SqC, or a harvesting
> volunteer from the original list of harvesters.  Hmm, I need to contact the
> people on that list to see who is still interested.)
> 
> To make things clear, the harvester should use a special keyword (which we
> should agree on now) such as "[approved]" in the parentheses of the SQFIXES
> entry.  That way I can do a simple search on the SQFIXES page to check for
> recently approved items.
> 
> After an item has been approved, one thing that we still want is a chance for
> other harvesters (and perhaps anyone else) to note that the item is about to
> go into the update stream, and voice any last minute opposition or
> refinements.  For example, "Wait a second, we don't want to just change
> frobozz like that... that could cause problems for this other doohickey."
> 
> With the previous harvesting process, each harvester had to submit a .zip file
> of a bundle of harvested changes to a largish list of people, which provided a
> convenient sort of last-minute screening for things.  In theory, we could do
> something similar with submitting bundles to this SqF list, but that seems a
> bit too heavyweight for me.  Perhaps we should just allow a certain amount of
> time to pass (say, at least 3 days) after an item has been approved, before it
> gets added to the update stream.  This will give people a chance to say "Hey
> wait a minute".  However, this requires that harvesters do a reasonable job of
> tracking the SQFIXES page on a semi-regular basis to see what new stuff is
> about to go in, rather than having a summary conveniently arrive in an email. 
> But I think this is probably workable.
> 
> Another thing I should probably do is add one last tag/keyword to SQFIXES
> entries which are being added to the update stream.  It could be ([update]) or
> something like that.  (The 3 day delay could happen between [approved] and
> [update], or it could happen between adding the [update] tag and actually
> adding the fix to the update stream.  Hmm, probably the former makes more
> sense.)  Realistically, I may only incorporate things into the update stream
> once per week or so, so the delay could vary from 3-10 days or something like
> that.  But that's still a pretty decent turnaround compared to what we have
> now.
> 
> Yet one more issue is whether we want to have stricter standards for
> [ENH]ancements.  We talked about requiring approval from two harvesters.  Or
> perhaps approval from one harvester, plus an [et] from any other third party
> would suffice.  Hmm.  (I suppose one drawback of having stricter standards is
> that people might be tempted to call something a fix which is really more of
> an enhancement.)
> 
> (I guess this post doesn't cover the issue of whether any of the [sl], [er],
> etc., tags should be mandatory before an item is approved by a harvester. 
> Certainly any such tags should make it more likely that an item will be
> seriously looked at.  I'd say we could probably get started incorporating
> stuff without requiring mandatory tags, and figure out which ones really need
> to be mandatory after going through the process for a little while.  Probably
> [et] and [er] should be required, at least, although the harvester could
> supply those tags upon approval, if no one else does.)
> 
> Anyway, we can try something like I outlined above.  Does this all sound
> reasonable?  The only thing I'm still not sure about is whether we want
> stricter standards for enhancements.
> 
> - Doug Way
> 
> 
> p.s. Once this is sorted out, I do need to update the various harvesting web
> pages that Tim mentioned.  And yes, a fancier harvesting system will be coming
> eventually, but probably not for a while.
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Tue Mar 25 05:51:55 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 31177 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 05:51:55 -0000
Received: from mailhost2-sfldmi.sfldmi.ameritech.net (HELO
	mailhost.det3.ameritech.net) (206.141.193.106)
	by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 05:51:55 -0000
Received: from riskmetrics.com ([66.72.186.201])
	by mailhost.det3.ameritech.net
	(InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP
	<20030325055153.KFAW176.mailhost.det3.ameritech.net@riskmetrics.com>
	for <[email protected]>;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:51:53 -0500
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:51:53 -0500
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Final steps for harvesting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548)
From: Doug Way <[email protected]>
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548)
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 05:51:56 -0000


On Monday, March 24, 2003, at 07:53 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> I think we should go with this process as outlined, without any
> additional rules for ENH nor making any specific tags mandatory.

ok.

> BUT - let all Harvesters note that we need this process to improve. And
> people are simply not fooled (for long) by mere statements, they track
> implemented policy. The extent to which we prefer simple stuff with
> proper tags, and require the tags to mean something, will determine
> community participation in the review process.
>
> The only reason to not require reviewers is because a submission is so
> simple and well prepared that its goodness is self evident. If you want
> to include something because you like the functionality, despite it not
> having enough tags or being as simple as it should, avoid the 
> temptation
> to "just do it" - instead solicit reviewers on the list.

Yes.  Although harvesters can also add their own tags as part of an 
[approved] entry, if they're motivated enough about a submission.  But 
yeah. :-)

> Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ...  Perhaps we should just allow a certain amount of
>> time to pass (say, at least 3 days) after an item has been approved, 
>> before it
>> gets added to the update stream.  This will give people a chance to 
>> say "Hey
>> wait a minute".  However, this requires that harvesters do a 
>> reasonable job of
>> tracking the SQFIXES page on a semi-regular basis to see what new 
>> stuff is
>> about to go in, rather than having a summary conveniently arrive in 
>> an email.

Actually, I momentarily forgot that all SQFIXES show up as emails 
first, so I guess this is less of a problem than I thought.  So anyone 
who follows squeak-dev will be able to notice when things are approved.

But anyway, I guess my point here is that even after an item is 
approved (but not yet incorporated as an update), it's not too late to 
raise an objection or add an additional comment to a submission.

- Doug Way