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

[Walter Bender]

My 2 cents:

Since the switch to github, we've have a much better turn-around on
reviews and we've attacked new reviewers. I think those data speak for
themselves. As Daniel said, we welcome help further shaping the
process.

regards.

-walter

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Manuel Quiñones <manuq at laptop.org> wrote:
> 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 ..
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org