[squeak-dev] Re: Edgar from the Ostracism Re: Squeak 4.1 release
juan at jvuletich.org
Tue Apr 6 12:04:19 UTC 2010
Andreas Raab wrote:
> Hi Edgar -
> On 4/5/2010 2:11 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>> I consider myself in Ostracism, so no mails and no discuss.
> Sorry, I've never heard the term, can you explain what it means?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism . In ancient Greece when a
political dispute was somehow resolved, the part that lost was required
to leave in exile for ten years, to avoid further confrontation, and let
the winning project be executed without hurdles. This is how Edgar feels
However, I don't think this is happening here at all. What I believe is
happening is that Edgar has a clear vision on how the release process
and released artifacts should be; but he fails to communicate it, and we
fail to understand it. So, no real discussion happens, Edgar believes
his proposals are rejected, and many would believe he never stated them
This is my attempt to help fill the gap :)
> ... (snip)...
>> Again I beg let 4.1 have dual way of updates.
>> Plain old real .cs in his updates folder as others forks like Cuis have.
> I don't understand the value of providing change sets separately.
> Given that all the changes come in via Monticello why is using a
> change set an advantage? Monticello may not be perfect but in
> particular when merging distant ancestors Monticello is far superior
> than change sets.
Edgar is not advocating the use of change sets for building the release.
He is asking for the automatic generation of change sets from MC, as
another form of the release. I see two good uses for that. One is for
somebody updating from the previous release and wanting to study in
detail the changes that were made, perhaps for cherry picking. The other
use is to help other forks (yes, like Cuis :) ) to follow what's going
on, and integrate as appropriate.
> Is there perhaps some other issue that you haven't mentioned and where
> you see change sets as a possible solution? If so, could you elaborate
> on that problem? There's a good chance that we may be able to come up
> with a solution to that problem that doesn't involve producing change
> sets from Monticello.
Does that mean that producing change sets from MC is difficult or a bad
>> May I do the release? Or must stick to my fork ?
> These aren't your only options. You can contribute to the current
> release, and you can start the discussion about the next one. There
> isn't only black and white there are many shades of gray to choose
> from :-)
> - Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev