Cool, I just pushed a rebased copy of si/5453. Will look forward to your next 
updates! 

-- 
Tim Van Steenburgh



On Monday, February 25, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Stefano Invernizzi wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> Yes, we know our branch is out of date. We would be very happy if you can
> rebase it, there's no problem about that!
> The idea of moving user stats within the user project is also very good. We
> will change and upload it according to your proposal as soon as possible.
> Thank you very much!
> 
> Stefano.
> 
> 
> 
> 2013/2/25 Tim Van Steenburgh <[email protected] 
> (mailto:[email protected])>
> 
> > Stefano & Simone,
> > 
> > Hey guys, I started doing some more testing on user stats today, and I
> > have a couple questions.
> > 
> > 1. Do you mind if I force-push a rebased-to-master copy of si/5453 to
> > origin? Your branch is quite out-of-date relative to master, and when I
> > rebased it there were several merge conflicts and other cleanup necessary
> > to get the code running. You're welcome to do the rebase yourself of
> > course, but if you're not comfortable with that I'd be happy to do it.
> > 
> > 2. I noticed that all the user stats links are rooted at /userstats. I
> > think it would be preferable to have the stats tool installed in the user
> > projects instead. So, the url would end up looking something like
> > "/u/admin1/stats". What do you guys think of that idea?
> > 
> > Tim Van Steenburgh
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Stefano Invernizzi wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, we fixed the issue in our code, it should be ok now. At the moment,
> > > when I try to run all the tests I get some errors from other packages. I
> > > tried to fix them, but I don't know how to do that, since they come from
> > > modules and packages dealing with repositories, and they are unrelated to
> > > our code.
> > > Thank you very much!
> > > Stefano
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 2013/2/21 Tim Van Steenburgh <[email protected] 
> > > (mailto:[email protected]) (mailto:
> > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]))>
> > > 
> > > > Hi Simone and Stefano,
> > > > 
> > > > I pulled your si/5453 branch today to do some more testing. I rebased
> > it
> > > > against master and kicked off the tests (`./run_tests` in the project
> > > 
> > 
> > root)
> > > > and got some failures. If you guys can get those fixed up and pushed
> > > 
> > 
> > back,
> > > > I'll try to wrap up the testing.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > 
> > > > Tim Van Steenburgh
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Monday, February 18, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Simone Gatti wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Dear Cory,
> > > > > what Dave said is correct, we refer to user stats.
> > > > > I'm sorry for this ambiguity, that we didn't noticed before your
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > comment.
> > > > > We welcome your *feedback on user stats*, since we have not yet
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > received
> > > > > many comments yet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Simone
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2013/2/18 Dave Brondsema <[email protected] 
> > > > > (mailto:[email protected]) (mailto:
> > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
> > > > )>
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Cory, I think Stefano is referring to user stats, which his feature
> > > > branch
> > > > > > starts collecting, not user profile data (gender, location, etc).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But on the topic of user profiel data, we've had a least one
> > > > SourceForge
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > communicate to use that he/she thought the fields were required. I
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > can
> > > > > > see how
> > > > > > this might be inferred since they're the first thing you see on the
> > > > > > /auth/prefs/
> > > > > > form. We might consider labelling those optional, or putting them
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > on a
> > > > > > separate
> > > > > > page from "subscriptions" and other sections on that page.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -Dave
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 2/18/13 9:55 AM, Cory Johns wrote:
> > > > > > > Stefano,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Could a user simply not fill in the personal info fields they
> > don't
> > > > wish
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > share? What is the value of entering that info but then not
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > displaying
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > it;
> > > > > > > to encourage users to enter it if only for our edification?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Cory
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Stefano Invernizzi <
> > > > > > > [email protected] 
> > > > > > > (mailto:[email protected]) (mailto:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])) 
> > (mailto:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]))>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Dear all,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I recently pushed some new commits allowing a single user to
> > hide
> > > > his or
> > > > > > > > her personal statistics. I and Simone implemented it since some
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > users
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > prefer not to show this data. In that case, data is still
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > available for
> > > > > > > > their personal use. However, if you think we should not allow
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > users to
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > this, we can simply put it back as it was.
> > > > > > > > As usual, we hope to get some feedbacks from you about this, as
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > well as
> > > > > > > > about the rest of submitted code.
> > > > > > > > It would be great for us if the code could be reviewed and, if
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > you
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > think it
> > > > > > > > would be useful, included on the forge before we complete the
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > thesis we
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > working on.
> > > > > > > > Thank you very much!
> > > > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Dave Brondsema : [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
> > > > > > http://www.brondsema.net : personal
> > > > > > http://www.splike.com : programming
> > > > > > <><
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 


Reply via email to