Terms of Reference: discussion is open
Locked
123
123
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
 
|
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote: At 12:00 PM -0800 11/6/09, Eliot Miranda apparently wrote: I am NOT sitting through a video taking notes. That should be done once by the documentor(s), not multiple times by each viewer. A video is such an ADD way of communicating technical information. It is NOT a reference document. It is great for an informal talk that provides entertainment and enlightenment in equal measure. But as a manual page it is pathetic. The medium needs to fit the message.
|
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
At 11:03 AM -0800 11/7/09, Eliot Miranda apparently wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Ken G. Brown <<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote: > >At 12:00 PM -0800 11/6/09, Eliot Miranda apparently wrote: > > >On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Ken G. Brown <<mailto:<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>At 7:15 PM +0100 11/6/09, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >>>On 06.11.2009, at 18:46, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>> >>>>IMHO, such smart guys that are doing the majority of contributions to trunk could have figured out the way forward with Keith's established future methodology using Installer, Sake/Packages, Bob the Builder, MC 1.5/1.6 in about ten minutes. Some were already up to speed on the way forward. They could then have contributed fixes to the tools for that methodology where required and we would be now in the future instead of stuck in the past, forked yet again with the old trunk methodology (it's not a 'new' development model) that got us into the difficulties in the first place. >>>> >>>>Ken G. Brown >>> >>>If it all sounds so easy (which in fact it wasn't, neither for the board members nor the community at large half a year ago) then why don't you contribute a tool everybody can use to easily harvest Mantis fixes into Trunk? Or add Installer support for trunk development? Or set up a Bob server to churn out ready-built trunk images and test results? Or make a trunk image with MC 1.5/1.6? >> >>I believe you are looking at this the wrong way around. The trunk started at an old position. > > >As you surely know, latest Installer, lpf and Sake/packages are already in the latest <<http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf>http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf><http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf>ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf or <<http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/>http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/><http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/>ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/, ready to go for Bob the Builder. If the trunk additions were added to the latest, using Sake/Packages I believe we would have something. Andreas and I showed that the trunk repository gets quite far along loading into Keith's latest but with hacks required to overcome the divergence that trunk has taken. Someone with the intimate knowledge of what is going wrong could most likely fix the remaining issue/issues easily. Adding lpf, MC 1.5/1.6 etc. to trunk, just continues the divergence. > > > >> >>>It may take you more then 10 minutes but *that* might get us moved forward even faster. Trunk development does progress fine, but we're all for improved tools and processes, so let's see them. >> >>You only need to look at Keith's documentation, videos, and emails to see where it is all at. He has explained this all in my opinion in enough detail over and over again. >> >> >>We've already been over this. A disparate set of communications is inadequate. It is too onerous to try and understand the system from a long and multi-media thread. This needs to be committed to some web pages, e.g. a wiki. >> > >For a while (before trunk), I was saving pertinent emails to a blog at <<http://squeaktipsandtrickswatch.blogspot.com/>http://squeaktipsandtrickswatch.blogspot.com/>. Some things have changed with Keith's stuff since but relatively minor I think. One could ask him if really interested. >Here is Keith's video from 4 months ago <http://www.vimeo.com/groups/squeak/videos/5434330>http://www.vimeo.com/groups/squeak/videos/5434330 showing how to use Sake/Packages to load AND unload Seaside 3.0. > > >I am NOT sitting through a video taking notes. That should be done once by the documentor(s), not multiple times by each viewer. A video is such an ADD way of communicating technical information. It is NOT a reference document. It is great for an informal talk that provides entertainment and enlightenment in equal measure. But as a manual page it is pathetic. The medium needs to fit the message. > That is what is available that I know of, my conclusion is that you may not want to learn about Sake then. As well, I learned from the video that you can do Installer install: 'Packages'. in a LPF image if it is not there to install Sake. I see that SakeTask has a class comment, there probably is more. Ken G. Brown >Ken G. Brown > > >>Ken G. Brown >> >> >>>And now back to the discussion at hand, shall we? Otherwise please change the subject. >>> >>>- Bert - |
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote: At 11:03 AM -0800 11/7/09, Eliot Miranda apparently wrote: On the contrary. I would like very much to try Keith's build system. But I have limited time. I could easily say that Sake implementors are not interested in gaining adoption. But what's the point of a tit-for-tat? Get the point that people who are serious about adoption of technical systems document them properly. video is a marketing tool, not a documenting tool.
|
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
Resurrecting the topic.
Guys, is there anyone else has to say something about it? Or we should consider that discussion is closed? Given the often opposite opinions, i think it would be really hard to distill & build some formal statements on top of that.. Or maybe i'm wrong, and we got a consensus here? 2009/11/7 Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>: > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> At 11:03 AM -0800 11/7/09, Eliot Miranda apparently wrote: >> >On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Ken G. Brown >> > <<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> >At 12:00 PM -0800 11/6/09, Eliot Miranda apparently wrote: >> > >> > >On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Ken G. Brown >> > > <<mailto:<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >>At 7:15 PM +0100 11/6/09, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >> >>>On 06.11.2009, at 18:46, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>IMHO, such smart guys that are doing the majority of contributions to >> >>>> trunk could have figured out the way forward with Keith's established future >> >>>> methodology using Installer, Sake/Packages, Bob the Builder, MC 1.5/1.6 in >> >>>> about ten minutes. Some were already up to speed on the way forward. They >> >>>> could then have contributed fixes to the tools for that methodology where >> >>>> required and we would be now in the future instead of stuck in the past, >> >>>> forked yet again with the old trunk methodology (it's not a 'new' >> >>>> development model) that got us into the difficulties in the first place. >> >>>> >> >>>>Ken G. Brown >> >>> >> >>>If it all sounds so easy (which in fact it wasn't, neither for the >> >>> board members nor the community at large half a year ago) then why don't you >> >>> contribute a tool everybody can use to easily harvest Mantis fixes into >> >>> Trunk? Or add Installer support for trunk development? Or set up a Bob >> >>> server to churn out ready-built trunk images and test results? Or make a >> >>> trunk image with MC 1.5/1.6? >> >> >> >>I believe you are looking at this the wrong way around. The trunk >> >> started at an old position. >> > >> > >As you surely know, latest Installer, lpf and Sake/packages are already >> > > in the latest >> > > <<http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf>http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf><http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf>ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf >> > > or >> > > <<http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/>http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/><http://ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/>ftp.squeak.org/3.11/Squeak3.10.2-lpf-atomic/, >> > > ready to go for Bob the Builder. If the trunk additions were added to the >> > > latest, using Sake/Packages I believe we would have something. Andreas and I >> > > showed that the trunk repository gets quite far along loading into Keith's >> > > latest but with hacks required to overcome the divergence that trunk has >> > > taken. Someone with the intimate knowledge of what is going wrong could most >> > > likely fix the remaining issue/issues easily. Adding lpf, MC 1.5/1.6 etc. >> > > to trunk, just continues the divergence. >> > >> > > >> >> >> >>>It may take you more then 10 minutes but *that* might get us moved >> >>> forward even faster. Trunk development does progress fine, but we're all for >> >>> improved tools and processes, so let's see them. >> >> >> >>You only need to look at Keith's documentation, videos, and emails to >> >> see where it is all at. He has explained this all in my opinion in enough >> >> detail over and over again. >> >> >> >> >> >>We've already been over this. A disparate set of communications is >> >> inadequate. It is too onerous to try and understand the system from a long >> >> and multi-media thread. This needs to be committed to some web pages, e.g. >> >> a wiki. >> >> >> > >> >For a while (before trunk), I was saving pertinent emails to a blog at >> > <<http://squeaktipsandtrickswatch.blogspot.com/>http://squeaktipsandtrickswatch.blogspot.com/>. >> > Some things have changed with Keith's stuff since but relatively minor I >> > think. One could ask him if really interested. >> >Here is Keith's video from 4 months ago >> > <http://www.vimeo.com/groups/squeak/videos/5434330>http://www.vimeo.com/groups/squeak/videos/5434330 >> > showing how to use Sake/Packages to load AND unload Seaside 3.0. >> > >> > >> >I am NOT sitting through a video taking notes. That should be done once >> > by the documentor(s), not multiple times by each viewer. A video is such an >> > ADD way of communicating technical information. It is NOT a reference >> > document. It is great for an informal talk that provides entertainment and >> > enlightenment in equal measure. But as a manual page it is pathetic. The >> > medium needs to fit the message. >> > >> >> That is what is available that I know of, my conclusion is that you may >> not want to learn about Sake then. > > On the contrary. I would like very much to try Keith's build system. But I > have limited time. I could easily say that Sake implementors are not > interested in gaining adoption. But what's the point of a tit-for-tat? Get > the point that people who are serious about adoption of technical systems > document them properly. video is a marketing tool, not a documenting tool. > >> >> As well, I learned from the video that you can do Installer install: >> 'Packages'. in a LPF image if it is not there to install Sake. >> I see that SakeTask has a class comment, there probably is more. >> >> Ken G. Brown >> >> >Ken G. Brown >> > >> > >> >>Ken G. Brown >> >> >> >> >> >>>And now back to the discussion at hand, shall we? Otherwise please >> >>> change the subject. >> >>> >> >>>- Bert - >> >> > > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
On 12-Nov-09, at 4:30 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > Resurrecting the topic. > Guys, is there anyone else has to say something about it? > > Or we should consider that discussion is closed? > Given the often opposite opinions, i think it would be really hard to > distill & build some formal statements on top of that.. > Or maybe i'm wrong, and we got a consensus here? I don't have much to add to the discussion, but if you, as a board member, want feedback from the community, perhaps my two bits are relevant. :-) I'm happy with the new development model. I find it much easier to contribute to the trunk than to the new process that the release team was developing. I know that Keith has explained how the process worked numerous times, on this list and elsewhere, but I could never understand it. The trunk process is easy to understand, easy to participate in and easy to observe. As for the issue of governance, I have no problem with the way this decision was made and carried out. Sure, the board could have been more diplomatic. At the end of the day, though, they were rejecting somebody's work, and I doubt that any amount of diplomacy could have made that go over well. I don't see any need to impose additional rules or restrictions on what the board can do. The existing system of governance works fine. Finally, a hat tip to Andreas, for his leadership in the trunk process. He's been in there reviewing inbox submissions, provoking discussion and channelling people's enthusiasm into real progress. Without him, the trunk would have gone nowhere. Well done. Colin |
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
On 11/12/09 2:11 PM, "Colin Putney" <[hidden email]> wrote: > I don't have much to add to the discussion, but if you, as a board > member, want feedback from the community, perhaps my two bits are > relevant. :-) > > I'm happy with the new development model. I find it much easier to > contribute to the trunk than to the new process that the release team > was developing. I know that Keith has explained how the process worked > numerous times, on this list and elsewhere, but I could never > understand it. The trunk process is easy to understand, easy to > participate in and easy to observe. > > As for the issue of governance, I have no problem with the way this > decision was made and carried out. Sure, the board could have been > more diplomatic. At the end of the day, though, they were rejecting > somebody's work, and I doubt that any amount of diplomacy could have > made that go over well. I don't see any need to impose additional > rules or restrictions on what the board can do. The existing system of > governance works fine. > > Finally, a hat tip to Andreas, for his leadership in the trunk > process. He's been in there reviewing inbox submissions, provoking > discussion and channelling people's enthusiasm into real progress. > Without him, the trunk would have gone nowhere. Well done. > > Colin Could'd say better in English. In Spanish I said BRAVO Andreas y todos los que trabajan. Edgar |
|
|
In reply to this post by Colin Putney
Am 12.11.2009 um 17:11 schrieb Colin Putney: May I go the easy way and just say ... +10! ;-) Thanks Andreas and Board! Cheers, Bernhard |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |