Re: The Harvesting process and the BFAV

Daniel
if we open more the process, I think that harvester/guides/ should have 
a veto vote.

Stef

On Vendredi, oct 17, 2003, at 10:39 Europe/Zurich, Daniel Vainsencher 
wrote:

> Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> bugs are good, because bugs generate tests.
> I'm sorry, but this seems to be a little disconnected from reality 
> right
> now. I agree they should, but they don't. And expecting everyone to
> start churning out lots of SUnit tests seems a bit optimistic. Though
> any ideas on how to achieve this would be very welcome - I do agree 
> that
> the easiest fixes to approve are the ones that turn a test green, so
> that would be a very sound technical basis to use, if we find the way 
> to
> cultivate it.
>
>> 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.
> Again, this seems reasonable if you can make some assumptions, such as
> that people will actually refactor. But this seems again, optimistic. 
> If
> people aren't joyfully reviewing one anothers patches, why do you 
> assume
> they'll cheerfully refactor one anothers "ugly code that got in the
> image"?
>
> We should also consider the case:
> 3) The patch could be completely inappropriate, like (apparently) 
> Martin
> Wirblats patch related to Pool declarations.
> Some patches, if accepted, simply reduce a solutions coherency, and 
> make
> it harder to understand and improve in the future.
>
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>