Picking up where we left it

[Cees De Groot]

Hi team,

I'm almost done moving - after the weekend, I'll declare the project a
success which means that I'll be able to get back to "work" again.

Top priority is feeding a new set of packages to the 3.9a team, and
this shouldn't take more than 1-2 weeks. Besides me, does anyone else
have some time to work on working through the network and files bugs
on Mantis? I don't think there aren't that many, and a number of them
can be declared "presently unfixable" (especially some Files bugs seem
to need VM-level work), so it shouldn't be too much work to get
something out.

After that, Flow? ;)

Regards,

Cees
_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

[Ken Causey]

What I really need is a procedure to follow regarding handling of Mantis
reports:

What image do I use to test bugs/fixes and create fixes?

What do I do with a fix that I think works?  What format do I use for
it?

When I go on to work on another issue do I start back with a clean image
or use an image with the fixes I have already produced/ok'ed?  What if
the issues are inter-related?

There's probably more, but that's what comes to mind at the moment.

Ken

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 21:49 +0100, Cees De Groot wrote:

> Hi team,
>
> I'm almost done moving - after the weekend, I'll declare the project a
> success which means that I'll be able to get back to "work" again.
>
> Top priority is feeding a new set of packages to the 3.9a team, and
> this shouldn't take more than 1-2 weeks. Besides me, does anyone else
> have some time to work on working through the network and files bugs
> on Mantis? I don't think there aren't that many, and a number of them
> can be declared "presently unfixable" (especially some Files bugs seem
> to need VM-level work), so it shouldn't be too much work to get
> something out.
>
> After that, Flow? ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Cees

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

[Ken Causey]

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:38 +0100, Cees De Groot wrote:
> On 3/15/06, Ken Causey <ken@...> wrote:
> > What image do I use to test bugs/fixes and create fixes?
> >
> 3.9-latest, I'd say.

Look.  If it were that simple I wouldn't be asking this.

What does '3.9-latest' mean?  The latest that the release team has
released to the community and updated to ftp.squeak.org/3.9alpha/ ?  Or
do I take that and check for updates (update stream)?  Do I also check
the 3.9 inbox?  What about the team inbox?

>
> > What do I do with a fix that I think works?  What format do I use for
> > it?
> >
> Monticello.

And do what with it?

>
> > When I go on to work on another issue do I start back with a clean image
> > or use an image with the fixes I have already produced/ok'ed?  What if
> > the issues are inter-related?
> >
> Good question. In this case, I'd say work from the latest because the
> primary goal is to deliver a single drop to the 3.9 team.

Again, 'latest' here is not at all well defined.

Ken


_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

[Ken Causey]

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 23:00 +0100, Cees De Groot wrote:

> On 3/15/06, Ken Causey <ken@...> wrote:
> > What does '3.9-latest' mean?
>
> The latest image published, I'd say (still in "proposal mode" rather
> than "setting the rules mode" ;-))
>
> Checking the inboxes is just too much work for marginal returns, if
> any. For 99% of the work, it's safe to assume that we're not affecting
> external code in any case (we're mostly going to bugfix for this
> round).
>
> > And do what with it?
> >
> Commit it to the Team repository (which, I just checked, still needs
> to be setup...)
>
> > Again, 'latest' here is not at all well defined.
> >
> Latest image + latest team package (after every commit, you should
> check to see whether anyone else committed before you and if yes, do a
> merge).

You mean check the team's inbox(es)?

So, 'latest' here means something 'later' than 'latest' above?

Ken


_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

[Cees De Groot]

Resuming my proposal:

- you take the latest image from the 3.9a pub ftp dir;
- you load in there the latest MC version from the Team's repository.
- hack away;
- save to the Team's repository;
- check for newer versions since you updated, if yes:
- - merge;
- - save new version.
- lather, rinse, repeat.

Something like that?
_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

[Ken Causey]

OK, so do I understand correctly that what we are then at least
attempting to do is all cooperate in growing a single 'version' of the
image (a specific public version + the team's shared monticello update)?
This is in contrast to use each producing a 'diff' from the published
image, and someone else (possibly the team leader) merging these into a
single monticello package which is then sent to the release team.

If I'm understanding this correctly, what happens then when a new public
3.9x version is released?  At that point we need to know whether or not
what we had been producing has been submitted to the release team and
incorporated into the released 3.9x version.

You may feel I'm picking at nits here.  But I know we had problems with
this when we started the Network team.  I'm not saying we can come up
with an absolute answer right now.  But I am saying this needs to be
given some thought and maybe when we get started we need to be in fairly
close communication and someone needs to be monitoring the resulting
product to see if it's going to work.

Ken

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 23:12 +0100, Cees De Groot wrote:

> Resuming my proposal:
>
> - you take the latest image from the 3.9a pub ftp dir;
> - you load in there the latest MC version from the Team's repository.
> - hack away;
> - save to the Team's repository;
> - check for newer versions since you updated, if yes:
> - - merge;
> - - save new version.
> - lather, rinse, repeat.
>
> Something like that?
>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

[Todd Blanchard]

I agree, I'm not entirely sure on proper procedure/etiquette either.

I'm also not sold on Monticello for managing changes to the image  
that may span packages.


On Mar 15, 2006, at 2:20 PM, Ken Causey wrote:

> OK, so do I understand correctly that what we are then at least
> attempting to do is all cooperate in growing a single 'version' of the
> image (a specific public version + the team's shared monticello  
> update)?
> This is in contrast to use each producing a 'diff' from the published
> image, and someone else (possibly the team leader) merging these  
> into a
> single monticello package which is then sent to the release team.
>
> If I'm understanding this correctly, what happens then when a new  
> public
> 3.9x version is released?  At that point we need to know whether or  
> not
> what we had been producing has been submitted to the release team and
> incorporated into the released 3.9x version.
>
> You may feel I'm picking at nits here.  But I know we had problems  
> with
> this when we started the Network team.  I'm not saying we can come up
> with an absolute answer right now.  But I am saying this needs to be
> given some thought and maybe when we get started we need to be in  
> fairly
> close communication and someone needs to be monitoring the resulting
> product to see if it's going to work.
>
> Ken
>
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 23:12 +0100, Cees De Groot wrote:
>> Resuming my proposal:
>>
>> - you take the latest image from the 3.9a pub ftp dir;
>> - you load in there the latest MC version from the Team's repository.
>> - hack away;
>> - save to the Team's repository;
>> - check for newer versions since you updated, if yes:
>> - - merge;
>> - - save new version.
>> - lather, rinse, repeat.
>>
>> Something like that?
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Io mailing list
> Io@...
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io