On 23.02.2013, at 15:14, "David T. Lewis" lewis@mail.msen.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:33:14AM -0800, Colin Putney wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:12 PM, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
No ceremony at all worries me. Call me Captain Slow (cf James May) but I like procedures. They're recipes for maintaining sanity over time.
Well, it's not quite "no ceremony," we're aiming for "no more ceremony than necessary." Here's the description of the way it's supposed to work now:
http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/a-new-community-development-mode...
This is really a key point. It did not seem like a big thing at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight I now think of the Andreas' community development model as perhaps his most important contribution to Squeak. I go back and reread his posting from time to time, along with the back to the future paper (http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html) just to remind myself of the basics.
+1
That said, I think that Mantis also plays an important role. Basically it is there for issues that cannot be quickly resolved on the mailing list, or that require some longer term collective memory for the community.
I honestly thought our Mantis system had pretty well died off a few years ago, but I kept on using it to record various VMMaker issues that could not be immediately resolved. There are issues like this that for various reasons may require years to bring to conclusion, and it is also helpful to have a record of those issues beyond what is found in email postings and Monticello commit comments.
A good example of such an issue that was just recently updated is this one:
http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6828
And an even better example is this one, which was not very important at the time the issue was logged, but which will be very important a few years later as the various VMs move to 64-bit platforms:
Mantis might appear less dead if reports/changes got posted to squeak-dev. Thoughts?
- Bert -