Re: The Harvesting process and the BFAV

On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:57:27PM +0200, ducasse wrote:
> >feels confident to review that code (who exactly even _could_ review 
> >Ned's
> >and my joint changes for adding/removing morphs?)
> 
> Exact! That's why I browse it and approved it.
> That's why this would be cool that you too pair a bit to have a look at 
> some
> enh pending at the morphic level.
> 
There is even between the harvesters a somewhat different view of what
"review" means. Some try to *really* understand everything
about a change, up to the point that the time invested is equal of
having done the whole thing themselves. 

As this seems to be the consesus among the Guides, I tried to do this
(to some extend) myself. But I personally think this does not work:
There is nobody who want's to do this, and those who do, burn just too
much time with it.

I would prefer a more Agile approach to harvesting. First: I'd
like to approve stuff that I filed in, that worked, and that looked
not totally strange when looking over the code.

I mean, what do we gain from not adding a fix done by someone who
allready submitted a lot of patches, just because nobody has the
time to really understand the fix? In the end, it's not fixed. Just
that. 

We really need to think about what the worst case of a more agile
review policy would be.

1) It could introduce a bug. Hey, what is the problem? That's what
   alpha is for. And bugs are good, because bugs generate tests.

2) It could be not-that-perfectly documented. To me, the alternative
   seems to be: Not adding, or adding a slightly-not-perfect thing.
   What is worse? I would *really* prefer to e.g. have some feature
   now instead of waiting indefinitly. But that may only be me.      

Make it green. Then refactor. 

 Marcus

-- 
Marcus Denker [email protected]  -- Squeak! http://squeak.de