On Aug 7, 2014, at 9:47 AM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >> It’s up to the community to be involved with the tools they love and to >> submit patches, and you’re totally right to remind everyone that it’s up to >> us to improve Pharo if we want to keep it alive, but it’s up to the core >> team to make sure that it’s easy for us to do so, and I think that Pharo’s >> not doing terribly well on that front right now. >> > We add a description on the old web site but he got lost. > Now in a nutshell, to submit a fix > > - donwload latest image (there is a script on download) > - do a fix for a giving bug > - publish a slice press (+ slice) in MC, add the dirty packages > - publish it in the inbox (click on inbox and press save) > - take a fresh image. > - reload it and check that it fixes the problem (open MC and click on > inbox + open). > > Does it help? > Was it so complex?
Yep, it helps. The issue isn’t that it was complex; it’s that it was undocumented. The new links are helpful.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
