[Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

[Manuel Quiñones]

2013/10/7 James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org>:
> Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>> Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > Daniel wrote:
>> > > Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > > > Samuel Wrote:
>> > > > In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no
>> > > > longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone
>> > > > seems to be developing their own version of Sugar.
>> > >
>> > > Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of
>> > > change (and we have not been reviewing most patches on the mailing
>> > > list since a long long time, well before the github switch).
>> >
>> > I think the change was the movement to github.  If we can add
>> > sugar-devel mailing list to the github mail destinations, that can
>> > be solved.
>>
>> I was mostly concerned about Samuel feeling that everyone is
>> developing they're own version of Sugar. I don't see that or at
>> least I don't see differences with the past.
>
> 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
> own".
>
> 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?  Has there been a measure of review
> rate?
>
>> 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
> communication.

James, Sam, I see this as a question of taste.

At least starters find very odd emails with patch format in pain text.
 At least one reviewer (me) find very odd copy/pasting the email
content to a file in order to give the patch a test.  And we had the
problem of email-patches being forgotten in the flow of threads.  That
is fixed, with zero patches in queue.

As Daniel said, you can receive email notifications from GitHub by
watching repositories.

> 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.
>
> What used to happen was easy.  Get a mail with the patch.  Scroll it
> down while reviewing it.  When the cognitive dissonance hits a
> threshold, hit the reply button and begin a comment.  Press send.
>
> Mail is a store and forward architecture.  I can use mail without
> having to wait for an internet connection.  Github is not so lucky:
>
> $ ping -n github.com
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 288.440/606.297/1049.233/262.776 ms, pipe 2
>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.linux.org.au/
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel



-- 
.. manuq ..