[Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.
manuq at laptop.org
Mon Oct 7 18:08:37 EDT 2013
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
> 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
>> 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
> I don't see how "watching the modules they are interested in" is "more
> flexible", nor whether greater flexibility increases the
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
> 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
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
.. manuq ..
More information about the Devel