Thanks for the response! That sounds perfectly reasonable. Everything is ready to go at this point (in terms of new plugin functionality), I'm just waiting on permission. I released something last night as a fork-of-a-fork thing that I'm not too proud of, but my organization needed something concrete to go through their governance process. I can retract all that once I'm able to push to the proper plugin.
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 8:01:45 AM UTC-4, Christopher wrote: > > It sounds like it would be best if you became another maintainer of the > plugin if the current maintainer doesn't have time at the moment. > > If the maintainer was ok with that, we can give you commit access now. > > In any case, from a user's point of view, it's better to have one plugin > than multiple plugins that are broadly similar. > > Regards, > Chris > > > On 25/05/15 05:08, Mike Rogers wrote: > > I did finally get in contact with the maintainer of the Rally plugin. > > However, given the recent goings-on in his life and the amount that I've > > been throwing at him, I'm wondering if it would be in both of our > > interests to fork and have two separate plugins. Mine focuses more on > > the SCM integration; the original favors Rally 'accounting', i.e. > > maintaining time spent and estimates from within the context of commit > > messages. > > > > Are there any thoughts? I still haven't managed to get an accepted pull > > request or any feedback from a code review. I'll be backfilling tests > > and refactoring for the next couple of weeks, and I have yet a few > > features I'd like to add. > > > > On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 9:05:00 PM UTC-4, Mike Rogers wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I would like commit access to the Rally plugin repository > > (https://github.com/jenkinsci/rally-plugin > > <https://github.com/jenkinsci/rally-plugin>) and potentially > > leadership of that plugin. My team is using Rally on a fairly large > > project (alongside several other teams) and I'm seeing a few areas > > where minor improvements would yield pretty cool results. > > > > > > To that end I have spent the past few days refactoring and doing > > some minor feature additions. Could I get a code review on my > > branch, > > https://github.com/mike-rogers/rally-plugin/tree/minor-refactoring? > > <https://github.com/mike-rogers/rally-plugin/tree/minor-refactoring?> > I > > have hooked it up to Travis-CI (the irony of which I recognize) and > > the build is green: > > https://travis-ci.org/mike-rogers/rally-plugin/branches > > <https://travis-ci.org/mike-rogers/rally-plugin/branches> > > > > > > I have added tests and refactored pretty heavily, while trying to > > keep the logic intact. If you review, I suggest getting a feel for > > the original repo and then looking at mine with fresh eyes. Looking > > at diffs may prove more confusing than not. > > > > > > If there are any questions or concerns, I love feedback. Please feel > > free to contact me. > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > -Mike > > > > > > PS - I have reached out to the primary committer of the repository, > > but his account has been nearly free of activity lately and I've > > heard nothing back. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/100b5dbd-55a6-4ec3-8e64-b4d71fe87a97%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
