Re: Current Harvesting Process

Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:

> (I used the term "Harvest Master" for my role as 
> update-stream-incorporator.  I think Hannes came up with this... I 
> couldn't think of another good term.  Maybe "Incorporator"... eh.)
Combine Harvester :-) Evokes an image of a nearly unstoppable machine
sweeping across the field of offerings, chopping them off at the base
and tossing them into the hopper.
Which is pretty much the job.

tim
-- 
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Strange OpCodes: PSP: Push Stack Pointer
From [email protected] Mon Apr 07 18:42:23 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 15197 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2003 18:42:23 -0000
Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (204.127.202.61)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2003 18:42:23 -0000
Received: from goldskin.attbi.com
	(12-234-54-55.client.attbi.com[12.234.54.55])
	by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP
	id <2003040718422100100df6cte>; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:42:22 +0000
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:42:15 -0700
From: Tim Rowledge <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]3.6 MasterPlanner!?
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, 07 Apr 2003 18:42:24 -0000

Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]> wrote:

> I agree that we should make sure removal of a package doesn't break
> either it or other stuff in the image.
> 
> I don't know whether there's a point in separating the refactorings from
> the removal package. After all, the removal package is supposed to get
> rolled into the updatestream.
Looks like we're already seeing the potential for problems with removal
code; macroBenchmarks interacting with vm code remove, games remove etc.

I guess we just need to stay aware of the potential for now since this
is a phase that ought to be over reasonably soon. I hope. As we
incorporate the assorted removals we can (I think) remove the items from
the SM list. If we do that at least we can avoid future problems when
somebody tries to use an out of date removal script.

tim
-- 
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
This is very curious ... as if someone was eating the wrong sort of
mushrooms when they invented this sort of thing
From [email protected] Mon Apr 07 19:15:50 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 20788 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2003 19:15:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lucy.riskmetrics.com) (12.3.62.14)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2003 19:15:50 -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 5.5.2653.13)
	id 2KDHXDAQ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:16:08 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 15:15:22 -0400
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]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]3.6 MasterPlanner!?
References: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:15:50 -0000


Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> I agree that we should make sure removal of a package doesn't break
> either it or other stuff in the image.
> 
> I don't know whether there's a point in separating the refactorings from
> the removal package. After all, the removal package is supposed to get
> rolled into the updatestream.
> 
> The Celeste removal does the refactorings required and then removes the
> package, which seemed reasonable to me at the time. If someone thinks
> this is a problem, I don't mind reworking it so refactorings and
> removals are separate.

Actually, that's not a big deal... for some reason I was thinking that we were
encouraging separate refactoring packages.

I guess the more important thing is that we should encourange the resulting
maintained packages to not overwrite methods if possible.  This will mean that
the pre-removal refactoring did its job.  In practice, though, this may not
always be possible.

> Other quality criteria - we should encourage package maintainers to
> never override code, but we can't enforce it. Right now, there isn't
> even a warning when loading a package that overrides code. We should
> provide the tool support first, start pushin the rule later.

Right.  By tool support, you mean things like adding the warning?

- Doug
From [email protected] Mon Apr 07 19:45:41 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 9533 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2003 19:45:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lucy.riskmetrics.com) (12.3.62.14)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2003 19:45:41 -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 5.5.2653.13)
	id 2KDHXDGX; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:46:01 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 15:45:18 -0400
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]>,
 	Bert Freudenberg <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Squeakfoundation]Refactor tag
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, 07 Apr 2003 19:45:42 -0000


Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> 
> Hi doug
> 
> Is there a special tag for the cleaning changeset. In the past I saw
> [Refactoring], there are simply ENH but in general they do no add
> anything.

We probably should add an official [REFACTOR] or [REF] or similar tag to the
list of tags parsed by the SQFIXES page, since it really is separate from
[ENH], [FIX], etc.  Also add it to the list on
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/398.

Sometimes a submission will be a combination of [FIX][REFACTOR] or
[ENH][REFACTOR], in which case both tags can be used.  But some of the Kernel
Cleaning Group's submissions will probably just be pure refactorings.

How about [REFACTOR] as the tag?  [REFACTORING] feels too long (much longer
than the other tags), and [REF] feels kind of short, although [REF] would
probably be okay too.

Does this sound reasonable to you, Bert?

- Doug
From [email protected] Mon Apr 07 21:01:21 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 25948 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2003 21:01:21 -0000
Received: from luxator.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (141.44.23.1)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 7 Apr 2003 21:01:21 -0000
Received: from isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (dhcp27161.cs.uni-magdeburg.de
	[141.44.27.161])h37L0tqo021877;
	Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:00:55 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:00:55 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
To: Doug Way <[email protected]>
From: Bert Freudenberg <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551)
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
cc: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
Subject: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Refactor tag
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, 07 Apr 2003 21:01:21 -0000

Am Montag, 07.04.03 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb Doug Way:
>
> Stephane Ducasse wrote:
>>
>> Hi doug
>>
>> Is there a special tag for the cleaning changeset. In the past I saw
>> [Refactoring], there are simply ENH but in general they do no add
>> anything.
>
> We probably should add an official [REFACTOR] or [REF] or similar tag 
> to the
> list of tags parsed by the SQFIXES page, since it really is separate 
> from
> [ENH], [FIX], etc.  Also add it to the list on
> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/398.
>
> Sometimes a submission will be a combination of [FIX][REFACTOR] or
> [ENH][REFACTOR], in which case both tags can be used.  But some of the 
> Kernel
> Cleaning Group's submissions will probably just be pure refactorings.
>
> How about [REFACTOR] as the tag?  [REFACTORING] feels too long (much 
> longer
> than the other tags), and [REF] feels kind of short, although [REF] 
> would
> probably be okay too.

I strongly accociate REF with "reference" ... how about RFC? Uh, strong 
association, too. FAC? Could do.

> Does this sound reasonable to you, Bert?

No problem here, I can add any tags you want ;-)

Still, I would consider refactorings to be enhancements for readability 
and maintainability, which are crucial qualities in an authoring 
environment. So I'd prefer posting these with an [ENH] tag. Also I 
prefer to have as few tags as possible. Cognitive load, you know ;-)

Anyway, if you want me to add anything, just let me know.

-- Bert