Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

SqueakSource policy

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

13 messages Options

j blatter

SqueakSource policy

Sorry if this was asked....

Is the SqueakSource meant to be

a) Code repository for public projects? (you uploaded because you want to share it)
b) Code repository for private projects (you can download from there because people just wanted the repository-internet-backup and don't minded it was public)
c) Both of the above?
d) None of the above?

If a) how it's happening that people are taking the time to register the account, uploading the files and doesn't provide a description or link of what they did? Is there a reason for the SqueakSource program not enforcing a minimal description of what a package does? this is an #ifTrue: ...isn't it? (I imagine is not *that* hard to implement that)

If c) there's a way to filter public from private?

If d) please explain me what it is :)

thanks

Philippe Marschall

Re: SqueakSource policy

2007/5/17, j blatter <[hidden email]>:
> Sorry if this was asked....
>
> Is the SqueakSource meant to be
>
> a) Code repository for public projects? (you uploaded because you want to
> share it)

yes

> b) Code repository for private projects (you can download from there because
> people just wanted the repository-internet-backup and don't minded it was
> public)

You can do that if you want. Just remember that all the files are on a
server on the University of Berne and the admins can access them.

> c) Both of the above?
> d) None of the above?

Additionally it's also used for exercises in lectures. We know there
is a lot of "junk" but so is on SourceForge.

> If a) how it's happening that people are taking the time to register the
> account, uploading the files and doesn't provide a description or link of
> what they did?

Ask them.

> Is there a reason for the SqueakSource program not enforcing
> a minimal description of what a package does? this is an #ifTrue: ...isn't
> it? (I imagine is not *that* hard to implement that)

We don't want to step on people's balls. If a code repository has
public write access you don't even need to register.

> If c) there's a way to filter public from private?

There is no real public/private distinction but it could be made with tags.

Cheers
Philippe

> If d) please explain me what it is :)
>
> thanks
>
>
>
>
>

Ralph Johnson

Re: SqueakSource policy

The main reason why most project on SqueakSource don't have a decent
project description is because most people are lazy. Whenever you see
a project that doesn't have a description, send e-mail to tha authors
asking them what the project is about, and suggest that they include a
brief description on their home page. If enough people do this,
SqeakSource projects will eventually get commented.

-Ralph

K. K. Subramaniam

Re: SqueakSource policy

On Thursday 17 May 2007 6:55 pm, Ralph Johnson wrote:
> The main reason why most project on SqueakSource don't have a decent
> project description is because most people are lazy.
A rule isn't a rule unless it is enforced!

How about rejecting project submissions unless they come with atleast 20 words
in their description? Surely, creating a 20-word abstract shouldn't be too
much of a burden for someone who has put in so much effort into a project.

Regards .. Subbu

Philippe Marschall

Re: SqueakSource policy

2007/5/17, subbukk <[hidden email]>:
> On Thursday 17 May 2007 6:55 pm, Ralph Johnson wrote:
> > The main reason why most project on SqueakSource don't have a decent
> > project description is because most people are lazy.
> A rule isn't a rule unless it is enforced!
>
> How about rejecting project submissions unless they come with atleast 20 words
> in their description? Surely, creating a 20-word abstract shouldn't be too
> much of a burden for someone who has put in so much effort into a project.

Which part of "we don't want to step on people's balls" wasn't clear?

Cheers
Philippe

> Regards .. Subbu
>
>

j blatter

Re: SqueakSource policy

Umm, that's a big no no Phillippe.

I wonder where others communities success resides...
Is not the right attitude for a community that wants to do the things right (and AFAIK that's one of the values that promotes Smalltalk). If SourceForge allows to register projects without descriptions or content is their problem.
I don't buy the people is too lazy about writing 20 words for a description but not to write code and upload to the server.

To send an e-mail to the authors or figuring out what a project does each time or worst, loading the package and reading the code, is step on people's balls too (and to more people out there). Am I so confused or wrong asking for this?

2007/5/17, Philippe Marschall <[hidden email]>:

2007/5/17, subbukk <[hidden email]>:
> On Thursday 17 May 2007 6:55 pm, Ralph Johnson wrote:
> > The main reason why most project on SqueakSource don't have a decent
> > project description is because most people are lazy.
> A rule isn't a rule unless it is enforced!
>
> How about rejecting project submissions unless they come with atleast 20 words
> in their description? Surely, creating a 20-word abstract shouldn't be too
> much of a burden for someone who has put in so much effort into a project.

Which part of "we don't want to step on people's balls" wasn't clear?

Cheers
Philippe

> Regards .. Subbu
>
>

Klaus D. Witzel

Re: SqueakSource policy

In reply to this post by K. K. Subramaniam

On Thu, 17 May 2007 16:45:51 +0200, subbukk wrote:

> On Thursday 17 May 2007 6:55 pm, Ralph Johnson wrote:
>> The main reason why most project on SqueakSource don't have a decent
>> project description is because most people are lazy.
> A rule isn't a rule unless it is enforced!
>
> How about rejecting project submissions unless they come with atleast 20
> words in their description?

This is an abstract. This is an abstract. This is an abstract. This is an
abstract. This is an abstract.

> Surely, creating a 20-word abstract shouldn't be too
> much of a burden for someone who has put in so much effort into a
> project.

The burden is on the reviewer and the policy makers: what to do when 20
words do not happen or sort of the above example happens.

If you want visitors to get valuable information on first visit, then you
need a process (and a policy) which ensures a) information and b) valuable.

/Klaus

> Regards .. Subbu
>
>

K. K. Subramaniam

Re: SqueakSource policy

In reply to this post by Philippe Marschall

On Thursday 17 May 2007 8:19 pm, Philippe Marschall wrote:

> 2007/5/17, subbukk <[hidden email]>:
> > On Thursday 17 May 2007 6:55 pm, Ralph Johnson wrote:
> > > The main reason why most project on SqueakSource don't have a decent
> > > project description is because most people are lazy.
> >
> > A rule isn't a rule unless it is enforced!
> >
> > How about rejecting project submissions unless they come with atleast 20
> > words in their description? Surely, creating a 20-word abstract shouldn't
> > be too much of a burden for someone who has put in so much effort into a
> > project.
>
> Which part of "we don't want to step on people's balls" wasn't clear?

The suggestion was in jest. I missed a smiley :-) :-)

Subbu

K. K. Subramaniam

Re: SqueakSource policy

In reply to this post by Klaus D. Witzel

On Thursday 17 May 2007 9:03 pm, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
> > Surely, creating a 20-word abstract shouldn't be too
> > much of a burden for someone who has put in so much effort into a
> > project.
>
> The burden is on the reviewer and the policy makers: what to do when 20
> words do not happen or sort of the above example happens.
There is no need to review. Just nag till a desc is given. For private
projects, the description doesn't matter. For public projects, the nag serves
to alert a submitter to an oversight.

BTW, my proposal was tongue in cheek. But given the grevious hurt :-) that
lack of comments in Squeak has imposed on beginners, I am afraid the same
problem may befall SqueakSource and turn off potential contributors from the
larger community.

Regards .. Subbu

Ron Teitelbaum

RE: SqueakSource policy

In reply to this post by Philippe Marschall

Philippe,

A-hem, there are women squeakers too! I guess they are much harder to step
on?

Ron

Igor Stasenko

Re: SqueakSource policy

In reply to this post by j blatter

1. You'll never miss a valuable package, even if it doesn't contains
description on SqueakSource.
2. Most people AFAIK uses it as public file repository for their
packages. In 99% cases you'll find a brief description of any package
in SqueakMap package browser or in new and shiny Universe package
browser.
Just use squeak and you'll find everything you want.

J J-6

Re: SqueakSource policy

In reply to this post by j blatter

Afaik, squeak source is a bare repository, like looking into someone's
darcs/svn tree. If they put up a description fine, if not fine. If the
package is public it should be accessible via Universes or Squeakmap, where
it *should* have a useful description.

>From: "j blatter" <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list"<[hidden email]>
>Subject: Re: SqueakSource policy
>Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 12:19:50 -0300
>
>Umm, that's a big no no Phillippe.
>
>I wonder where others communities success resides...
>Is not the right attitude for a community that wants to do the things right
>(and AFAIK that's one of the values that promotes Smalltalk). If
>SourceForge
>allows to register projects without descriptions or content is their
>problem.
>I don't buy the people is too lazy about writing 20 words for a description
>but not to write code and upload to the server.
>
>To send an e-mail to the authors or figuring out what a project does each
>time or worst, loading the package and reading the code, is step on
>people's
>balls too (and to more people out there). Am I so confused or wrong asking
>for this?
>
>
>2007/5/17, Philippe Marschall <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>2007/5/17, subbukk <[hidden email]>:
>> > On Thursday 17 May 2007 6:55 pm, Ralph Johnson wrote:
>> > > The main reason why most project on SqueakSource don't have a decent
>> > > project description is because most people are lazy.
>> > A rule isn't a rule unless it is enforced!
>> >
>> > How about rejecting project submissions unless they come with atleast
>>20
>>words
>> > in their description? Surely, creating a 20-word abstract shouldn't be
>>too
>> > much of a burden for someone who has put in so much effort into a
>>project.
>>
>>Which part of "we don't want to step on people's balls" wasn't clear?
>>
>>Cheers
>>Philippe
>>
>> > Regards .. Subbu
>> >
>> >
>>
>>

>

_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows
Live Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507

Lex Spoon-3

Re: SqueakSource policy

In reply to this post by K. K. Subramaniam

subbukk <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Thursday 17 May 2007 9:03 pm, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
> > > Surely, creating a 20-word abstract shouldn't be too
> > > much of a burden for someone who has put in so much effort into a
> > > project.
> >
> > The burden is on the reviewer and the policy makers: what to do when 20
> > words do not happen or sort of the above example happens.
> There is no need to review. Just nag till a desc is given. For private
> projects, the description doesn't matter. For public projects, the nag serves
> to alert a submitter to an oversight.
>
> BTW, my proposal was tongue in cheek. But given the grevious hurt :-) that
> lack of comments in Squeak has imposed on beginners, I am afraid the same
> problem may befall SqueakSource and turn off potential contributors from the
> larger community.

I don't see this as a likely problem. SqueakSource is a service with
zero entry costs. That's a valuable thing for the community. It also
means, though, that there will probably be an awful lot of cruft on
there.

While it's ultimately up to the fine folks behind SqueakSource, this
all seems fine to me. It simply means you have to look elsewhere to
find out about what is actively useful and maintained. We already
have forums for that, though, e.g. the Weekly Squeak. So personally,
I'd rather SqueakSource stays focussed on what it is good at:
providing project hosting services at the lowest entry cost possible.
So far they have managed to make the costs practically zero, which
makes it a real bargain for Squeak programmers.

Lex Spoon