Jerome,
Thanks for brining up this issue. For me I considered this work as a
temporary place holder for issues that needed to be included in 3.10 but
that were already being loaded manually by developers. Having this image
for me allows me to know what issues I can forget about since they will be
handled in 3.10.
The Cryptography team had a major issue with Monticello Configurations. We
had to reconfigure our repository and drop the dependence on MCC because it
didn't work out of the box. Had there been a process to address these
problems we would have been much better off. Also notice that there is more
then one patch for MCC. There is also a debate about certain fixes. This
problem has lead to no fixes. In my experience continuous integration can
really help to solve problems like this since the issue raised by the first
fix could have been address with additional functionally added instead of
arguing which method was correct (since both methods have their own merits,
naming each and including both as separate menu items is probably the
correct answer).
If 3.9.1 does not include any fixes that are not destined for 3.10 and if
those fixes are already being used and blessed by leading members of the
community then I think this process has a potential benefit to the
community.
As to the name this doesn't matter that much to me. I agree with your
points about having a process that is not sanctioned by the board. This is
less then optimal. I do not see what Keith is doing as significantly
different from what Pavel is doing. I would be ok if we called this the 3.9
plus image and said that it was not official as long as we understand that
no changes will be included that are not also included in 3.10 and that all
items that are included are minor bug fixes and are sanctioned by leading
developers (what ever that means in practice). If we can not agree on those
two points then I don't see the benefit either and will wait for 3.10.
What ever we do I agree communication is the key to success.
Happy coding!
Ron Teitelbaum
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
[hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev-
>
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jerome Peace
> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 7:59 PM
> To:
[hidden email]
> Subject: Towards 3.9.1 . Away from What?
>
> Towards 3.9.1 . Away from What?
>
> Hi Simon, Hi Edgar
>
> Thanks for your replies.
> >
> >
> > Simon Kirk squeak at simonkirk.com
> > Sun May 6 21:24:54 UTC 2007
> >
> > Jerome Peace <peace_the_dreamer <at> yahoo.com>
> writes:
> >
> > > I watch all of Keith's efforts with wonder and
> some
> > > trepidation.
> > >
> > > He has very bold plans and when kept after (by
> others)
> > > may do an reasonable job of coding.
> > >
> > > He is also off acting on his own on what he
> thinks is
> > > needed.
> >
> > >From the point of view of the dev list, it doesn't
> > seem to be completely
> > striking out on his own: the "towards 3.9.1" thread
> > seemed broadly
> > supportive. Edgar quite rightly put forward
> questions
> > to do with future
> > developments in the same thread, but I didn't see
> those
> > as negative, and
> > support his vision and reasons for raising the
> > questions.
> >
> > > I see what he is doing as undermining the efforts
> of
> > > the 3.10 team. And I wonder why this is.
> >
> > Do you mean you wonder why you see it this way, or
> do
> > you mean you wonder
> > why it is undermining the 3.10 team?
>
> The question is valid in both of the ways you read it.
>
> His project will benifit the community if it succeeds
> or educate Keith if it runs into problems.
>
> The naming of the project 3.9.1 I see as undermining
> the authority the community has put in the hands of
> the board. It may be reasonable for Keith to
> characterize his project in that way but it will IMO
> lead to confusion.
>
> I am disappointed in the board for leaving a vacuum
> around an this issue. So I have brought it up here.
>
> > > He is appropriating the version number 3.9.1.
> Which
> > > portrays an intention for his release to be a
> > > successor to 3.9 but close to it.
> > > [snip]
> > > Keith has the power to do what he will. But
> calling
> > > it 3.9.1 implies a blessing for his actions that
> he
> > > has not formally asked for nor formally received.
> Some
> > > controls should be put on what he calls it less
> his
> > > efforts be taken (by those outside) as authorized
> and
> > > encourgaged by the offical board.
> >
> > This is a fair point. IMO if used "officially" the
> > 3.9.1 name should indeed
> > be used for a release that is "offically blessed"
> by
> > the community.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > It has struck me for some time that Mantis and
> posts to
> > the list together
> > contain a *lot* of useful fixes and suggestions
> that
> > spend a long time
> > there, not being incorporated into a downloadable
> > image.
>
> When I posted this email I made a concious decision to
> just address the protocol issues in this subthread and
> the practical issues in the other subthread. (Towards
> 3.9.1 What's going on here?)
>
>
> I ask those who respond to these threads to respect
> that decision, keep that distinction, and reply to the
> appropriate sub-thread.
>
> Clear thinking will lead to clear solutions.
>
> Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace (Bug Tracker)
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> __________
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
>
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
Locked
signature.asc (196 bytes)