[Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
dwnarvaez at gmail.com
Mon Oct 7 18:00:47 EDT 2013
On 7 October 2013 23:39, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
> participation in development has been confined to those who take the
> trouble to visit a web site.
> (The reviews by mail were also stimulating other discussion on list).
> So on the theory that developers are developing with less review (even
> though it might be unseen greater review), this leads to the
> conclusion that Sugar is being developed by these developers "on their
Well "everyone seems to be developing their own version of Sugar" seems to
be more than that. But maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
There aren't multiple groups of people or individuals developing sugar on
their own. As far as I know all the work that is being done these days is
> And, actually, I'm fine with that. A smaller group can achieve more
> if they are able to use these new tools effectively.
> I have not been effective since that change, but you would have seen
> that a review counter or tracking?
I can't parse this question.
> Has there been a measure of review
We usually have 1 reviewer per patch. All the patches that have been
submitted so far has been reviewed and landed.
> We probably can have sugar-devel as email destination... Though I'm
> > not sure why people wouldn't just watch the modules they are
> > interested in? It seems more flexible. Anyway not opposed to send
> > all modules to the whole mailing list if there is consensus on
> > that.
> I don't see how "watching the modules they are interested in" is "more
> flexible", nor whether greater flexibility increases the
Because if we send patches to the mailing I'm pretty sure some people will
be annoyed. In fact someone got annoyed when he was added to the reviewers
group and started getting email.
> Please don't configure github to send links to the patches; they have
> to be the patches themselves. They should also have a from address
> that matches the originator.
I highly doubt what you want is possible, at least without doing
substantial work... If you have time feel free.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel