Re: Self-approving fixes (was Re: ContextCleanupPlus-ajh)
Doug Way <[email protected]> Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:23:19 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.foundation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Daniel Vainsencher wrote: >I agree generally, but 25% of ones harvests seems like something that is >too hard to keep track of. How about simply restricting it to very >simple stuff, that is under 1k of code? > >This fits with a feeling I have that trivial cleanups should be easy to >insert, because they hold little risk, and big stuff should get more >reviews because they hold more risk. > > That sounds like a good rule. The 25% figure doesn't have to be a strict rule... it could be more of a guideline. The general idea being that we want to encourage reviewing/approving other people's submissions as much as possible. - Doug >Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>Daniel Vainsencher wrote: >> >> >> >>>I know why isSymbol is needed, and don't personally mind your self >>>approving it. ... >>> >>> >>> >>I've been thinking that the rigid "you can't approve your own >>submission" rule is probably too strict. When we started up the >>harvesting group a couple of years ago (with SqC still in charge), >>harvesters were allowed to harvest their own submissions, as long as >>they mostly reviewed other people's. >> >>What we could do is allow approving one's own submissions if they're >>reasonably simple fixes. But we should have some rule of thumb such as: >>no more than 25% or so of the things you harvest should be your own >>items, because we don't want the harvesters just working on their own stuff. >> >>This would have the added benefit that if harvesters *really* wants to >>get their own submissions in, they'll also review a few items from other >>people, so that they meet the ~25% rule. >> >>So something like this might encourage more harvesting. It won't >>necesssarily solve all of our current issues, but it's a start... >> >>- Doug >> >> >> >> >>>I don't know why Number>>extend: is needed, and probably >>>won't miss it very much for the next 3 years. >>> >>>And more to the point, those extensions Anthony wrote that are generally >>>useful (asBit, header information printer, around half the OC protocol >>>mentioned), deserve to be presented to Squeakers so they'll get used, >>>instead of becoming more browser-filler. >>> >>>Daniel >>> >>>Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 03:55:44AM +0200, Daniel Vainsencher wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>[Additions to various classes...] >>>>>Note that my problem with these is not that I argue with the usefulness >>>>>of specific items - I simply don't think that it's appropriate to >>>>>include them as part of a fix. Why don't you post them one by one to the >>>>>mailing list for discussion, where people may argue whether they are >>>>>appropriate. You're saying that something should be part of the class >>>>>library, defend your opinions on squeak-dev, just like Richard does, >>>>>method by method, idea by idea. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I just self-approved a two-liner I posted six weeks ago. So I would >>>>estimate that this procedure will take maybe 3 years. >>>> >>>> Marcus >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Marcus Denker [email protected] -- Squeak! http://squeak.de >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>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 >> >> >_______________________________________________ >Squeakfoundation mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation > >