[Pharo-project] Pharo, squeak and the tickets
I had a look at the tickets in the google tracker. A lot of them appear to me that they belong to squeak as well. I'm quite unsure what would be the best way to deal with both sides (pharo and squeak) because there are bugs found through working on pharo that belong to squeak as well. On the other hand we harvest things from squeak. What would you prefer? 1. Opening issues where they belong first and let "the others" harvest what they think they need? 2. Playing back the issues to bugs.squeak.org if we find a bug that belongs also to squeak and bring them back by harvesting? How do we want to harvest fixes from other places? 1. Having a wiki page where issues found are written down? 2. Opening tickets on the google tracker for this? This would be "to harvest" tickets. Norbert
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote: [snip]
What would you prefer?
1. Opening issues where they belong first and let "the others" harvest what they think they need? 2. Playing back the issues to bugs.squeak.org if we find a bug that belongs also to squeak and bring them back by harvesting?
This is what I propose: * If an issue applies to Squeak, file a report on Mantis.
How do we want to harvest fixes from other places?
1. Having a wiki page where issues found are written down? 2. Opening tickets on the google tracker for this? This would be "to harvest" tickets.
* File an issue for everything we want to do in Pharo in the google tracker, *including* for "harvesting" fixes in other projects. Thus, I would still file an issue on the google tracker for Mantis reports. Such issues should probably follow a template, and have a label that indicates their origin (in addition to the description). As a matter of fact, I think we should file an issue for every fix listed in the wiki pages in ThreeDotTenFixes, ThreeDotTenDotOneFixes, etc.. This way, people can assign to themselves a given fix, and we can more easily keep a handle on things. The issue tracker should be the *one* place where you can find what nees to be done. BTW, this leads to something else I wanted to bring up. Currently, "harvest" means two things: 1) Put in Pharo a fix available in Squeak (or Croquet, etc..); and 2) Move a package from the PharoInbox into the Pharo update stream. Could we come up with a different name for 2? Something along the lines of 'integrate', 'validate', 'process', etc.. "Stephane is processing fix X in the PharoInbox". Saludos, VÃctor RodrÃguez.
Norbert
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
2008/6/12 Victor Rodriguez <victorr@gmail.com>:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote: [snip]
What would you prefer?
1. Opening issues where they belong first and let "the others" harvest what they think they need? 2. Playing back the issues to bugs.squeak.org if we find a bug that belongs also to squeak and bring them back by harvesting?
This is what I propose:
* If an issue applies to Squeak, file a report on Mantis.
Yes we could be nice with Squeak ;-)
How do we want to harvest fixes from other places?
1. Having a wiki page where issues found are written down? 2. Opening tickets on the google tracker for this? This would be "to harvest" tickets.
* File an issue for everything we want to do in Pharo in the google tracker, *including* for "harvesting" fixes in other projects.
Thus, I would still file an issue on the google tracker for Mantis reports. Such issues should probably follow a template, and have a label that indicates their origin (in addition to the description).
As a matter of fact, I think we should file an issue for every fix listed in the wiki pages in ThreeDotTenFixes, ThreeDotTenDotOneFixes, etc.. This way, people can assign to themselves a given fix, and we can more easily keep a handle on things.
The issue tracker should be the *one* place where you can find what nees to be done.
I agree with this plan.
BTW, this leads to something else I wanted to bring up. Currently, "harvest" means two things: 1) Put in Pharo a fix available in Squeak (or Croquet, etc..); and 2) Move a package from the PharoInbox into the Pharo update stream. Could we come up with a different name for 2? Something along the lines of 'integrate', 'validate', 'process', etc.. "Stephane is processing fix X in the PharoInbox".
Yes and after the vocabulary is fixed, can we document this vocabulary and the harvesting process in the Wiki. I think we need something like a workflow. -- Serge Stinckwich Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] http://blog.doesnotunderstand.org/
On Jun 12, 2008, at 1:43 AM, Victor Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote: [snip]
What would you prefer?
1. Opening issues where they belong first and let "the others" harvest what they think they need? 2. Playing back the issues to bugs.squeak.org if we find a bug that belongs also to squeak and bring them back by harvesting?
This is what I propose:
* If an issue applies to Squeak, file a report on Mantis.
How do we want to harvest fixes from other places?
1. Having a wiki page where issues found are written down? 2. Opening tickets on the google tracker for this? This would be "to harvest" tickets.
* File an issue for everything we want to do in Pharo in the google tracker, *including* for "harvesting" fixes in other projects.
Yes I think that having only one flow of fixes is important.
Thus, I would still file an issue on the google tracker for Mantis reports. Such issues should probably follow a template, and have a label that indicates their origin (in addition to the description).
As a matter of fact, I think we should file an issue for every fix listed in the wiki pages in ThreeDotTenFixes, ThreeDotTenDotOneFixes, etc.. This way, people can assign to themselves a given fix, and we can more easily keep a handle on things.
Yes
The issue tracker should be the *one* place where you can find what nees to be done.
Yes
BTW, this leads to something else I wanted to bring up. Currently, "harvest" means two things: 1) Put in Pharo a fix available in Squeak (or Croquet, etc..); and 2) Move a package from the PharoInbox into the Pharo update stream. Could we come up with a different name for 2? Something along the lines of 'integrate', 'validate', 'process', etc.. "Stephane is processing fix X in the PharoInbox".
Yes if you have some clearer ideas than me shoot stef
Saludos,
VÃctor RodrÃguez.
Norbert
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
participants (4)
-
Norbert Hartl -
Serge Stinckwich -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Victor Rodriguez