Made adjustments as suggested and got side navigation working Rob
On 2/21/13 12:13 PM, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 21/02/13 18:41, Rob Vesse wrote: >> I have added a page to the website on this - see >> http://jena.apache.org/getting_involved/reviewing_contributions.html >> > >Cool - maybe >(not on a machine setup for on the site ... "semi" connected currently) > >"developers will be looking for when reviewing contributions." >==> >"comitters will be looking for when reviewing contributions." > >Typo: "Is is contributed to Apache?" >==> >"Is it contributed to Apache?" > >> I have tried to get this included in the sidebar navigation but I can't >> figure out how that works, anyone able to fix this? > >Were you changing ia.txt? Isn't that just documentation about the site >structure, not the content? Good to keep that up to date. > >The site is driven from templates/ IIRC, is it sidenav.mdtext? > >I'm not sure though - try out on staging first! > > Andy > > >> >> Rob >> >> >> On 2/8/13 12:46 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> One follow-up: >>> >>> There are two TLA that float around >>> >>> CTR - commit then review >>> RTC - review then commit >>> >>> for two styles of operation of a project >>> >>> CTR is commit (to the main codebase) and have people check it >>>afterwards >>> - a sort of passive agreement process. Jena is more this style. It >>> works for small projects when enough people can have an overview of the >>> whole thing; it's lighter weight, the level of analysis is typically >>> less but eyeballing changes is possible. Having a test suite is >>> essential, creating a off trunk version to check is not. It does not >>> work so well for large additions. It is short-timescale. >>> >>> RTC is review (on JIRA or git pull requests), agree then integrate into >>> the main code base. Used on large projects (e.g. the Hadoops of this >>> world) where many areas can be active at once. It is higher overhead >>> but necessary when the complexity of the code base means things need to >>> be checked in detail, often by building and running e.g. performance. >>> It has a lot longer cycle time. >>> >>> As a small project (and in the scheme of things, Jena is small) we can >>> choose lighter weight processes and also vary the process to suit on >>> each item. Small patches can be just do it, things that change >>> functionality can be brought to dev@. Your judgement. >>> >>> Rob's excellent list applies. >>> >>> We ought to be fairly systematic on asking for tests both for bug >>> reports and contributions. We seem to get waves of "it does not work >>> messages" and it takes inspired guesswork (well, random guesswork) to >>> see what might be going wrong. >>> >>> Andy >> >
