Re: Pharo-project Digest, Vol 20, Issue 286

>
>> Good point. When I have a fix for OB under pharo. What is the preferred
>> ?process. So far I posted them on the bug tracker, is that okay?
>
> OB has its bug tracker at <http://code.google.com/p/omnibrowser/>.
>
> In the past people have been committing fixes to
> http://source.wiresong.ca/ob. The problem with this approach was that
> there is no control over what got integrated. People submitted changes
> to wrong packages, untested changes, changes that broke the tests,
> changes that broke the meta-model, or changes that simply broke some
> browsers. Then people merged random branches and it was not clear what
> to load, what worked and what didn't. I don't know what the take on
> this is from Colin?

>
> On 2009-12-29, at 2:15 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>>
>>> Good point. When I have a fix for OB under pharo. What is the preferred
>>> ?process. So far I posted them on the bug tracker, is that okay?
>>
>> OB has its bug tracker at <http://code.google.com/p/omnibrowser/>.
>>
>> In the past people have been committing fixes to
>> http://source.wiresong.ca/ob. The problem with this approach was that
>> there is no control over what got integrated. People submitted changes
>> to wrong packages, untested changes, changes that broke the tests,
>> changes that broke the meta-model, or changes that simply broke some
>> browsers. Then people merged random branches and it was not clear what
>> to load, what worked and what didn't. I don't know what the take on
>> this is from Colin?
>
> Yes, we definitely need a little more process around this. I'm thinking of having a separate inbox repository where contributions can be made. Once a contribution had been tested, it would be promoted to the main repository. Ultimately, I'd like to have a robot do at least part of that - run the tests and either report test failures or promote the changes - but for now we can do it manually.
>
> Thoughts?