On 2013-10-21, at 22:30, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
It is fundamentally wrong to rely on written description of processes (not to be confused with documentation). We script, we write code, we do not read prose.
Sorry but the integration requires human intervention at least to make sure we do not merge bullshits or checking conflicts just before. Right now this is like that. Then even a script should be commented and documented. When I read you, you give the impression to the rest of the world that we are idiots doing everything manually. But this is not the case. We are doing only 2%: checking conflicts, writing the log and closing the bugs. Of course we should continue and make it fully automate.
Which is something we solved with Ben 2 years ago. It did not do everything automatically, but as much as you can: - it list the issues that can be integrated - it lets you select the issues to be integrated - it shows the diff of the integrated changes - it triggers a new update cycle
I'm favor of that. Now why neither marcus me or esteban do not use it? May be because we are afraid that if something break we are at loss. At least this is a stress to integrate a fix (even fullllllllly automated - the prove is that our wonderful staged process lets me publish cs while it should not else you would not complain that the system produced new items without corresponding images)
I still didn't get what went exactly wrong with the updates. Maybe you can explain the steps you did, so we can prevent such kind of faulty updates in the future. For retracting files you need access to files.pharo.org.