Great idea! Yesterday I saw that page and I though: I'm thinking on taking another student just to not have that page that empty with all the efforts Marina and others are doing... but two students for code in something like Nautilus it's too much for my first time.
So you fixed two problems in once right now Thanks! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lasse Schuirmann" <[email protected]> To: "Carlos Soriano Sanchez" <[email protected]> Cc: "Allan Day" <[email protected]>, "desktop-devel-list" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 13 March, 2015 9:09:17 PM Subject: Re: Canonical jhbuild documentation 2015-03-13 21:01 GMT+01:00 Carlos Soriano Sanchez <[email protected]>: > Hi everyone again, > > Sorry for reborn this, but now that most of the changes for 3.16 are done, > it's time to think again =) > > I have been thinking on this for the past few days, and I think we agreed in > a not that good solution. > So what we try to fix, is not actually a "Canonical jhbuild documentation". > That is a problem that came > from another problem. So what we have to do is actually fix that original > problem. > That original problem is, no documentation for "Getting started with > contribution for Gnome". > Given that we didn't have that, we created multiple jhbuild tutorials because > is the part that allows > multiple ways and is dependent of the person who writes the tutorial, nothing > more. > > - Why "Making a canonical jhbuild documentation" is not the fix for this? > Because we still need to explain git, patches, code styles etc. So we will > need to have the wiki anyway. > And we don't link directly to all the documentation of git; instead we > explain briefly the guidelines. > So you can see the paralelism with jhbuild. > OTHO, with xdg-app comming, making one part of the contribution of gnome > inside jhbuild > oficial documentation won't help at all, and we will have to move it again to > the wiki? > > - What do I propose? > So, what we actually need is a "Canonical documentation for contributing > gnome". In developers.gnome.org. > As I offered before for the Jhbuild one, I offer me volunteer (with whoever > wants to join) for this one as well. Just jumping in without having read all those messages before - wouldn't that be a possible Outreachy project? If you are investing time anyway you could also mentor a student to get faster and better documentation. They are lacking ideas anyway. See https://wiki.gnome.org/Outreach/Outreachy/2015/MayAugust#Project_Ideas > Then we won't care about jhbuild or xdg-app, we will write there whatever is > better and easier at that time. Then having > multiple jhbuild tutorials in the wiki will stop to make sense at all for > sure. > > What do you think? > For me when this came to my mind I saw the light in the tunnel =) > > Cheers, > Carlos Soriano > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Allan Day" <[email protected]> > To: "Carlos Soriano Sanchez" <[email protected]> > Cc: "desktop-devel-list" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, 17 February, 2015 5:40:16 PM > Subject: Re: Canonical jhbuild documentation > > Carlos Soriano Sanchez <[email protected]> wrote: > ... >> When I created the series of BuildGnome & CodeContributionWorkflow my >> intention was creating a simple straightforward workflow >> for contributing to Gnome for newcommers to Gnome and/or FOSS. So the >> simpler the better. > ... >> BuildGnome it is not a generic jhbuild guide, it's a guide for get started >> asap in Gnome which uses jhbuild to build and run >> Gnome applications. That's it. I don't think a newcomer needs more. > > Thanks for all the work you've put into the guides, Carlos, as well as > advising newcomers. It's really great to have you involved with this. > > I agree that it makes sense to have a separate guide that is targeted > at people who want to get up and running as quickly as possible. > >> But if we agree that Jhbuild is just used only for contributing Gnome, then >> we could merge some simple guide as >> the official documentation. > > As I've said previously, I don't see why a "basic usage" or "getting > started" section couldn't be added to the official docs. People will > naturally gravitate towards these, and it is good to avoid the docs > being a dead end. > > That said, it is important that you are happy maintaining these pages > if they are in Mallard. The wiki is obviously working for you right > now as an author, and it would be a shame if you lost your momentum > due to any change to where the page is kept. > > That's just my opinion though - it's your work; feel free to decide > what you think is best. > > ... >> On the other hand, I'm looking forward to have xdg-app and no longer need >> Jhbuild for this =) > > Indeed! > > Allan > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
