On Dec 29, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Colin Putney wrote:
On 2009-12-29, at 2:15 AM, pharo-project-request@lists.gforge.inria.fr 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?
would be cool. (I got no time to have a look at Mason). We brainstormed with henrik or I do not remember who about the same setup for validating packages for given version of pharo. Colin should we reply to you in addition than to pharo? Lukas told me that the forge refused your email because you have your own smtp.
Colin _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project