Re: Self-approving fixes (was Re: ContextCleanupPlus-ajh)

BTW, the recent discussions about process made me go look at the swiki
at what is actually visible, and actually, if you're a new Squeaker
browsing through, starting from /1, it is hard to get to the good
documentation, which is a pity, because people are probably missing it
all the time.

I'll be adding to it and refactoring it soon.

Daniel

Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation