On Feb 1, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Nicolas
>
> We wanted to see the diff like in squeak (check the mails in september) but
> the squeaksource server would die under the
> diff size to generate (sic lukas). So? Do you think that we are explicitly
> against squeak. If we ever reached this state of mind, this is
> years that we passed it.
>
>> Maybe it's because the process only have appearances of quality, but
>> doesn't really pay off.
>
> Why do you say that? We log all our bugs and actions. So you can take all the
> fixes for squeak if you want. This is not my goal in life.
> Now we are more busy than average and sometimes opening a bug entry when you
> already pushed the code in the server
> is subject to missing some parts. But this is life.
Another aspect: Every 100% regid requirement kills a process. We tried that in
Squeak in the past. E.g. at one point, people
said we should *require* tests and a code review before adding a fix. Result:
complete standstill. Yes, these things are *nice*
and they should be done more often, but as soon as you require them, nothing
will happen.
The same with deprecation: Yes, we want to provide deprecation for one release
for easy migration. But this in turn can not
be a law. There is so much cruft and so little structure (API vs. internal
methods undefined), that one can not move if a strict
rule is adopted.
Strict rules kills human processes.
Marcus
--
Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de
INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
