Re: Compatibility

Hi all!

"Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[SNIP]
> But just knowing what the standard says is not enough.
> You have to know which of those operations are _actually_ portable.
> (Richard Harmon put a lot of work into his ANSI-Squeak kit.  Many thanks
> to him!  Why isn't this stuff already all in Squeak 3.2?)

Well, being a harvester (not having done any harvesting and feeling
terrible about it) I can simply say that Squeak suffers greatly from an
"integration bottleneck". I have some ideas on how we could improve
that, both by using technology but also perhaps by changing the "rules"
a bit.

This is a sidetrack but one idea I have is to place the actual
"submission/integration burden" on the original "poster" of
fixes/enhancements and simply use the appointed harvesters as a "review
team" which you would get a "green light" from (minimum 2 people or
something). Well, something along that line anyway. I think one thing
holding back harvesting is that it simply is quite a bit of work. But
this is just a personal reflection - others may be satisfied with the
current process, but I doubt it.

Another idea is to have some form of ... "unstable" (as in Debian).
3.3alpha doesn't feel like that - you still need to get "harvested" to
get something in there. I would like for us to have an image where
"anything goes in" for people to roam around in and look at new stuff.
This would essentially be the place where the "reviewers" I talk about
would "live" by more or less having a "recent submissions" browser which
they simply open up, look through the submissions and play around with
them etc. and just either click the checkbox "OK" or "Reject" and a
textcomment with special info or instructions on how to improve the
thing.

Then I also hope Modules will help out in this area but that is another
thing.

Anyway, good idea about the compatibility charting in the browser. I
like it.

regards, Göran