I wish retake old good practice
Locked
12
12
I wish retake old good practice
 
|
I the past we have the [hidden email] for discuss about the release process. I friendly invite all wishing discuss plans, give feedback, etc to join the list. In particular , I wish talk about my fork SL3dot11 and how this could be 4.2 SqueakCore. For this I move to http://ftp.squeak.org/Experiments/ all I using now. And pick Experiments because I know my ways is not business as usual. All with deeper Smalltalk, be kind with me. Y recuerden que aca abajo del mundo no nos gusta matar mosquitos con un cañon. Preferimos matar dragones con una gomera. And remember in the Wild South we don’t like kill mosquitoes with a cannon. We prefer slay dragons with a rubber. Edgar |
I wish retake old good practice
|
|
I the past we have the [hidden email] for discuss about the release process. I friendly invite all wishing discuss plans, give feedback, etc to join the list. In particular , I wish talk about my fork SL3dot11 and how this could be 4.2 SqueakCore. For this I move to http://ftp.squeak.org/Experiments/ all I using now. And pick Experiments because I know my ways is not business as usual. All with deeper Smalltalk, be kind with me. Y recuerden que aca abajo del mundo no nos gusta matar mosquitos con un cañon. Preferimos matar dragones con una gomera. And remember in the Wild South we don’t like kill mosquitoes with a cannon. We prefer slay dragons with a rubber. Edgar |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
On 10.03.2010, at 09:55, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> Folks; > > I the past we have the [hidden email] for discuss about the release process. > I friendly invite all wishing discuss plans, give feedback, etc to join the list. > In particular , I wish talk about my fork SL3dot11 and how this could be 4.2 SqueakCore. > For this I move to http://ftp.squeak.org/Experiments/ all I using now. > > And pick Experiments because I know my ways is not business as usual. > > All with deeper Smalltalk, be kind with me. > > > Y recuerden que aca abajo del mundo no nos gusta matar mosquitos con un cañon. > Preferimos matar dragones con una gomera. > > And remember in the Wild South we don’t like kill mosquitoes with a cannon. > We prefer slay dragons with a rubber. > > > Edgar Please do *not* take release discussion off this list. It was not "good practice". Instead, it was one of the reasons that the larger community had no idea what was going on. Everyone here should be interested in the next release so it makes no sense to take it off squeak-dev. - Bert - |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
On 3/10/10 8:15 AM, "Bert Freudenberg" <[hidden email]> wrote: > It was not "good practice". So is not a good practice, why we have such list? |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
On 10.03.2010, at 10:24, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> > > > > On 3/10/10 8:15 AM, "Bert Freudenberg" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> It was not "good practice". > > So is not a good practice, why we have such list? Because nobody took the time to remove it, also to preserve the archives. Maybe we should just take it off the "all lists" page, make it read-only, and change the description to say why. - Bert - |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
On 3/10/10 8:23 AM, "Bert Freudenberg" <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 10.03.2010, at 10:24, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 3/10/10 8:15 AM, "Bert Freudenberg" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> It was not "good practice". >> >> So is not a good practice, why we have such list? > > Because nobody took the time to remove it, also to preserve the archives. > Maybe we should just take it off the "all lists" page, make it read-only, and > change the description to say why. > > - Bert - > Ok, I send all here. See you on Skype and suppose you see me, just in case... Edgar |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
2010/3/10 Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]>:
> On 10.03.2010, at 09:55, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote: >> Folks; >> >> I the past we have the [hidden email] for discuss about the release process. >> I friendly invite all wishing discuss plans, give feedback, etc to join the list. >> In particular , I wish talk about my fork SL3dot11 and how this could be 4.2 SqueakCore. >> For this I move to http://ftp.squeak.org/Experiments/ all I using now. >> >> And pick Experiments because I know my ways is not business as usual. >> >> All with deeper Smalltalk, be kind with me. >> >> >> Y recuerden que aca abajo del mundo no nos gusta matar mosquitos con un cañon. >> Preferimos matar dragones con una gomera. >> >> And remember in the Wild South we don’t like kill mosquitoes with a cannon. >> We prefer slay dragons with a rubber. >> >> >> Edgar > > Please do *not* take release discussion off this list. It was not "good practice". Instead, it was one of the reasons that the larger community had no idea what was going on. Everyone here should be interested in the next release so it makes no sense to take it off squeak-dev. > > - Bert - +1. Germán. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
>>
> > Please do *not* take release discussion off this list. It was not > "good practice". Instead, it was one of the reasons that the larger > community had no idea what was going on. Everyone here should be > interested in the next release so it makes no sense to take it off > squeak-dev. > > - Bert - It is good practice, and it was the decision that was made after the 3.9 arguments that caused the 3.9 team so much pain. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What is not good practice is to arbitrarily ignore the good practice that was in place before. If the discussions about 3.11 had happened on the release list then the whole debacle would not have happened in the first place. We would have had a chance to explain to Andreas why his back of a fag packet idea he knocked up over the weekend wasn't any good. Keith |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
On 3/10/10 9:34 AM, "keith" <[hidden email]> wrote: > It is good practice, and it was the decision that was made after the > 3.9 arguments that caused the 3.9 team so much pain. Those who do not > learn from history are doomed to repeat it. > > What is not good practice is to arbitrarily ignore the good practice > that was in place before. > > If the discussions about 3.11 had happened on the release list then > the whole debacle would not have happened in the first place. We would > have had a chance to explain to Andreas why his back of a fag packet > idea he knocked up over the weekend wasn't any good. > > Keith Well, it's amazing we start to think similar. I sure Juan and you deliver a amazing Cuis and I plan steal as much as I could :=) Edgar |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
2010/3/10 keith <[hidden email]>:
>>> >> >> Please do *not* take release discussion off this list. It was not "good >> practice". Instead, it was one of the reasons that the larger community had >> no idea what was going on. Everyone here should be interested in the next >> release so it makes no sense to take it off squeak-dev. >> >> - Bert - > > It is good practice, and it was the decision that was made after the 3.9 > arguments that caused the 3.9 team so much pain. Those who do not learn from > history are doomed to repeat it. > > What is not good practice is to arbitrarily ignore the good practice that > was in place before. > > If the discussions about 3.11 had happened on the release list then the > whole debacle would not have happened in the first place. We would have had > a chance to explain to Andreas why his back of a fag packet idea he knocked > up over the weekend wasn't any good. > > Keith > > Keith, You already told us what you think, didn't you ? maybe you should introduce slight variations : "was theoretically not any good..." and then some could answer,: "but practically not that bad..." Nicolas |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
In reply to this post by Edgar De Cleene
On 10 March 2010 14:36, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > On 3/10/10 9:34 AM, "keith" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> It is good practice, and it was the decision that was made after the >> 3.9 arguments that caused the 3.9 team so much pain. Those who do not >> learn from history are doomed to repeat it. >> >> What is not good practice is to arbitrarily ignore the good practice >> that was in place before. >> >> If the discussions about 3.11 had happened on the release list then >> the whole debacle would not have happened in the first place. We would >> have had a chance to explain to Andreas why his back of a fag packet >> idea he knocked up over the weekend wasn't any good. >> >> Keith > > Well, it's amazing we start to think similar. > I sure Juan and you deliver a amazing Cuis and I plan steal as much as I > could :=) > > Edgar > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
On 3/10/10 11:45 AM, "Igor Stasenko" <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hehe, you can't steal something which already given away for free :) I mean Cuis have great ideas and was a source of inspiration for me. I use "steal" as Juan is almost a neighbor and think he understand. Edgar |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
On 10.03.2010, at 12:34, keith wrote:
> > it was the decision that was made after the 3.9 arguments that caused the 3.9 team so much pain. The 3.9 aftermath was not nice and I regret the pain it caused. But the root problem was that Marcus and Stef had to do way too much on their own. No release team should ever have to do that much work again. What they did was heroic and I'm still thankful for that, but it was not sustainable. That's why we needed a new process where people could contribute directly, and we hopefully now found one with the Trunk contribution process. That's also why I'm advocating against a release team that does anything more than actually package a release. And that's why I'm arguing for a freeze period on Trunk when we near a release to let the dust settle, so effectively *everybody* is working towards the release, and not just one or two people. > If the discussions about 3.11 had happened on the release list then the whole debacle would not have happened in the first place. If the 3.11 discussions happened on squeak-dev instead of IRC and lesser frequented mailing lists, you would have had a lot more support. Visibility and communication is key. - Bert - |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
On 10 March 2010 16:07, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 10.03.2010, at 12:34, keith wrote: >> >> it was the decision that was made after the 3.9 arguments that caused the 3.9 team so much pain. > > The 3.9 aftermath was not nice and I regret the pain it caused. But the root problem was that Marcus and Stef had to do way too much on their own. No release team should ever have to do that much work again. What they did was heroic and I'm still thankful for that, but it was not sustainable. > > That's why we needed a new process where people could contribute directly, and we hopefully now found one with the Trunk contribution process. > That's also why I'm advocating against a release team that does anything more than actually package a release. > And that's why I'm arguing for a freeze period on Trunk when we near a release to let the dust settle, so effectively *everybody* is working towards the release, and not just one or two people. > >> If the discussions about 3.11 had happened on the release list then the whole debacle would not have happened in the first place. > > If the 3.11 discussions happened on squeak-dev instead of IRC and lesser frequented mailing lists, you would have had a lot more support. Visibility and communication is key. > Big +1. The development should be as much open as we can afford. Then we will not run into situation like with 3.9 release, where release team were put on flames, because people wasn't aware/prepared to changes they made. Lets not build the walls between people. > - Bert - > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
>>>>> "Bert" == Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> writes:
Bert> That's why we needed a new process where people could contribute Bert> directly, and we hopefully now found one with the Trunk contribution Bert> process. That's also why I'm advocating against a release team that Bert> does anything more than actually package a release. And that's why I'm Bert> arguing for a freeze period on Trunk when we near a release to let the Bert> dust settle, so effectively *everybody* is working towards the release, Bert> and not just one or two people. Bert> If the 3.11 discussions happened on squeak-dev instead of IRC and lesser Bert> frequented mailing lists, you would have had a lot more Bert> support. Visibility and communication is key. +1 -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion |
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
>> If the 3.11 discussions happened on squeak-dev instead of IRC and
>> lesser frequented mailing lists, you would have had a lot more >> support. Visibility and communication is key. No actually it is not. In a community as diverse as this one, it is of no benefit to throw every decision to the unwashed masses of lurkers and non-contributing armchair critics. You will never get consensus. (Why not ask Marcus Denker what he thinks of Squeak-dev) You are far better of having an actual plan. and doing it. People can read and discuss the plan if they want to. The board is supposed to provide the liason and the stability. The team is supposed to get on with the job, unhindered by the transient clutter of squeak-dev What is this management 101? Have you never heard of the responsibility of management to protect the team from inappropriate pressures. Secondly, using Squeak-dev for release team discussion was not viable for me personally, but no one, least of all the board, listened to me on that one. Keith |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
They picked the wrong process too. MC for kernel development, what a silly idea.
No release team should have to do any work at all. Contributions should be completed parts, developed relative to a single base line, that can be assembled.
Anyone can develop their contribution off line, and publish it as a loadable package. trunk doesn't help that process. In fact it has resulted in several such contributions being ignored and effectively thrown away, because trunk is not able to sustain multiple parallel development branches. It also confuses any possible analysis of what is a discrete innovation, and it encourages things to be included before they are ready or documented. You have heard of premature optimisation, well now you have premature integration.
Trunk is merely group hacking. It took me 30 years to learn that what I was doing was hacking and to see the light.
Agreed. A release is merely an assemblage of selected features/packages and functionality. Now you have re-instated the elite, I cant use trunk, I am not clever enough.
When was I supposed to code? Keith |
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
2010/3/10 keith <[hidden email]>:
> > Secondly, using Squeak-dev for release team discussion was not viable for me > personally, but no one, least of all the board, listened to me on that one. > > Keith > > Keith: When I seconded the comment of Bert I'm talking of *now*. In this particular moment, with two release teams and the need of publish something soon I think that is better to discuss the things here. In a more "normal" situation may be is worth to have a release list, don't sure. Germán. |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On 3/10/2010 6:07 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 10.03.2010, at 12:34, keith wrote: >> >> it was the decision that was made after the 3.9 arguments that caused the 3.9 team so much pain. > > The 3.9 aftermath was not nice and I regret the pain it caused. But the root problem was that Marcus and Stef had to do way too much on their own. No release team should ever have to do that much work again. What they did was heroic and I'm still thankful for that, but it was not sustainable. Completely agree. > That's why we needed a new process where people could contribute directly, and we hopefully now found one with the Trunk contribution process. > That's also why I'm advocating against a release team that does anything more than actually package a release. > And that's why I'm arguing for a freeze period on Trunk when we near a release to let the dust settle, so effectively *everybody* is working towards the release, and not just one or two people. I think that's exactly right. Perhaps we should formulate the tasks for a release more clearly. Here's an attempt at doing this: Release Tasks: * Drive the process to decide which packages to include besides the core packages. This needs to be a community process where the community decides what should be in Squeak and what shouldn't. The release team's task is to implement the results of this discussion. * Drive the process about what the out-of-the-box look should be. Which projects should be loaded by default, what they should contain, how the preferences should be set, etc. * Ensure that important bugs are closed for the new release, solicit feedback on the missing issues, decide what are considered release blockers. * Ensure all tests are green. * Ensure proper packaging of the result on all platforms, verify installation procedures, find a variety of testers for the result. * Ship it. Am I missing something? Cheers, - Andreas |
Re: I wish retake old good practice
|
|
On 3/10/10 2:58 PM, "Andreas Raab" <[hidden email]> wrote: > Am I missing something? What about complete new ways of work ? Because just complete SqueakCore-9371-alpha, in the way to go Experiments folder. And I wish this become 4.2 when all you saw in the videos on youtube is polished enough to all CoreDevelopers, not to all in squeak dev or to Board will. For that I working hard. For that on each Monday we have reports and the next Monday, two reports. One for FunSqueak , or the process for have the most big image with the most packages which could load and work . Another for SqueakCore. Edgar |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |