Okay, Erkki, I suppose you should just post all your thoughts to the list. We're eagerly awaiting them!
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]>wrote: > Okay, I hear what your saying. Personally I think it's partially how you > sell it, but if you think it will supress discussion then I guess we can > just discuss it directly on the list. > What do you say to having, in general, one thread per class being discussed > (that is, assuming people stick to the idea to focus on one class at a > time), and prefixing the subject with [naming] or something like that? > > > ------------------------------------- > Jim Barrows<[email protected]> wrote: > > Note: I just realized this was gonig to the list, and individual emails as > well. edited the to and cc fields. > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > I'm confused by your reply. > > Firstly, I think I was clear that I'm not going to do anything that you > or > > David disapprove of. So if my idea is not a good one just scratch it! > > In any case I'm confused by what you said. What is "hidden" about a > Google > > Docs document? Whoever wants to participate in the discussion can write > in > > the document. > > > > The first problem is that anyone who might wish to comment hase to know > about it. How often people either not check, not check thoroughly enough > the existing mailing list as it is? So now you want them to read the > mailing list or the wiki to find out about a discussion happening someplace > else? That's going to complicate matters a whole lot. > > The second problem is that you won't be able to get away from the > implication that things are being done behind the communities back. > Pretty > much no matter what you do. Again the problem is human beings. Everybody > is not going to search, and some people are going to feel like that without > a personal invitation to "join the elite working way over here", they have > no opportunity to participate. > > The spreadsheet I created is just a data tracker. I fully expect, and > encourage the discussions to happen on the lists. The limited number of > people who can write to it is to prevent discussions happening away from > the > list, not to limit the discussion itself. That's why it has columns to put > links to discussion on it. > > And if three people, or ten, discuss it there and then run it by everyone > on > > the list, those people will certainly not ignore what others on the list > > have to say. > > Was I unclear in the previous message? Or is my ignorance of Google Docs > at > > play? Or did I misunderstand something? > > > > > There's a huge difference between people working together, coming to the > list and going what's the best way to solve 'X', or we think 'Y' would > better the 'X' because of blah blah, and people working together and coming > to the list and going "Change this!". There's an even bigger difference > when the latter are some sort of "Refactor and Reorganize Lift Committee". > > > Thanks. > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Jim Barrows<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > 100%. > > > But that need could be reconciled with my idea in either of two ways: > > > 1. There is discussion taking place, just in the Google Docs file as > > > opposed to the maling list. Anyone who wants can participate. The point > > is > > > that I suspect much of the reason everyone wants better naming but no > one > > is > > > doing anything, is because there's a lot of overhead besides the actual > > act > > > of discussion. I think we need an approach that lets people 'just > > discuss' > > > the names in context, without any extra work like copy pasting into > > > spreadsheets etc. > > > > > > > > > So, you're trying to drive disucssion to some place hidden from the rest > of > > the list (and by list I mean, users and creators of Lift). > > > > > > > > > 2. If that's not satisfactory, then we can summarize the discussion on > > the > > > list or just run the "conclusion" by everyone on the list. This way the > > > discussion itself will remain lighweight and overhead-less, but it will > > > still have to go through public scrutiny on the list before any ticket > is > > > filed. > > > > > > > > > To present the users and creators of Lift with, essentially, a fait > > accompli? > > > > Leave me out of that one. > > > > > > > > > Of course if you still object we're all ears! > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > David Pollak<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Does anyone object to this approach? > > > > Any source file that's being reviewed (hopefully one or very few at a > > > time) > > > > should be uploaded to Google Docs as a text document. Discussion can > > > consist > > > > of the built in google chat functionality but mainly by inserting a > ((( > > > ... > > > > ))) section in scaladoc comments and writing your name and thoughts > > > there. > > > > The advantage to this "poor man's code review" is that there's no > > > overhead > > > > for someone to join the effort - no arranging things in a spreadsheet > > or > > > > linking threads. I suspect that may have been an impediment until > now. > > > > Of course nothing will be merged back from there; it's just a context > > for > > > > discussion that may lead to tickets. > > > > > > > > > > In general, folks shouldn't open tickets without a discussion on this > > list > > > and at least a nod from me, Marius, Derek or Tim. There are some > > > exceptions > > > to this general rule. For example, if there's an actual defect (e.g., > > NPE > > > de-serializing JSON data structures and you include a reproduceable > case) > > > or > > > if you are me, Marius, Derek or Tim and you're queuing up work for > > > yourself. > > > > > > Why? (1) the current ticketing system does not allow for good > discussion > > > of > > > things and the whole community is not involved (2) one person's > "defect" > > is > > > another person's feature so having a discussion to keep things oriented > > > towards where Lift is going is a lot better on list and (3) some > tickets > > > like "write more documentation" serve no purpose because there's no > > person > > > attached to the work and those kinds of tickets just clutter the > > ticketing > > > system which doesn't have good filtering or prioritization tools as it > > is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > Erkki Lindpere<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I just noticed that GitHub also lets you comment on *commits*, but > not > > > > files :( > > > > > > > > But Google Docs or whatever you end up deciding on works for me. > > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 11:42 pm, Ross Mellgren <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We have a code review board (reviewboard.liftweb.net), but it's > > pretty > > > > > geared towards changes. I don't know if it can be configured or > used > > > > > or what-have-you for reviewing the current state of code. > > > > > > > > > > -Ross > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Erkki Lindpere wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Another option would be to use a specialized code review tool, > > though > > > > > > someone would have to host it. There's one thing that may not fit > > > > > > about these, though: usually they are for reviewing *changes* and > > not > > > > > > existing code. I don't know what the good ones are, but some > > > otherwise > > > > > > commercial products are free for Open Source projects (all of > these > > > > > > list Git support as well): > > > > > > > > > > > SmartBear CodeCollaborator / CodeReviewer > > > > > >http://smartbear.com/codecollab.php > > > > > >http://smartbear.com/codecollab-buy.php<-- about open source > > > > > > licensing > > > > > > > > > > > Atlassian Crucible > > > > > >http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/ > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/licensing-faq.jsp#open-source > > > > > > <-- about open source licensing > > > > > > > > > > > I know there are some open source ones as well, personally I've > > only > > > > > > used Crucible once and an open source tool a long time ago (don't > > > > > > remember which one). > > > > > > > > > > > Or how about writing a simple code review app in lift as an > example > > > > > > project :) > > > > > > > > > > > Erkki L > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 9:31 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Neat, thanks! > > > > > >> Where to post it is a very, very good question. I would suggest > > not > > > > > >> to invest much in a particular medium before you help us > > > > > >> crystallize a good answer! > > > > > >> (Attention all interested in the naming progess: I think we made > > > > > >> good progress in terms of guidelines, and I think the next step > is > > > > > >> to discuss this question!) > > > > > >> Originally the idea was to keep an organized Google Docs > > > > > >> spreadsheet. I am not sure how sustainable the approach is > though, > > > > > >> because the amount of overhead may weigh it down too much. I am > > > > > >> curious if that is part of why not much progress has been made. > > > > > >> Jim, if you're reading this (I hope you are!) can you comment? > > > > > >> The problem with just filing tickets is that everyone has > > different > > > > > >> ideas, so discussion may be necessary to arrive at a consensus. > At > > > > > >> least posting it here first means if someone objects he will > have > > a > > > > > >> chance to voice his objection. > > > > > >> One idea is one discusson thread, in the main Lift list, per > Lift > > > > > >> class. If everyone focuses on one or a few classes at a time it > > > > > >> won't clog the list too much. > > > > > >> Another idea of mine is to put the lift source file on Google > Docs > > > > > >> as a text document, and people can contribute to the discussion > by > > > > > >> writing inside the scaladoc comments. Nothing will get merged > > > > > >> directly back to git; it's just a very lightweight way of > > > > > >> discussing. E.g.: > > > > > >> /** > > > > > >> Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxx Xxx > > > > > >> Erkki: why is xxx xx xxxxxxx > > > > > >> nafg: well, xxx and xxx > > > > > >> erkki: okay, but ... > > > > > >> */ > > > > > >> def someFoo ... > > > > > > > > > > >> What do you think? Very out of the box but it means very little > > > > > >> copy-pasting work: the only overhead is uploading a source file; > > > > > >> the rest is pure discussion in an inherently organized context. > > > > > >> The disadvantage compared to threads on the list is that it > won't > > > > > >> get as much automatic public scrutiny, but whoever wants can > have > > > > > >> Google Docs email them any edits. > > > > > >> Thoughts, everyone? > > > > > >> Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > >> Erkki Lindpere<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> Hmm... actually seems like it will be a long document, I've > > already > > > > > >> got several suggestions with 10 minutes of looking. Maybe I'll > do > > a > > > > > >> complete code review for the lift-webkit module if I have time / > > > feel > > > > > >> like it. Where should I post it? There doesn't seem to be a > > separate > > > > > >> developers list. > > > > > > > > > > >> Erkki L > > > > > > > > > > >> On Dec 29, 7:58 pm, Erkki Lindpere <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ok, I'll collect some specific issues I have with the API over > a > > > bit > > > > > >>> longer period of usage and post them as an issue in GitHub? Or > > > here? > > > > > > > > > > >>> Erkki L > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Dec 28, 4:40 am, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> * there are several classes that have lots of methods in them > > > that > > > > > >>>>> don't all belong together. For example: S, LiftRules, I'm > sure > > > > > >>>>> there's > > > > > >>>>> more. Some packages have too many classes as well. I think > > there > > > > > >>>>> should be a cleaner separation of concerns. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Again, I think there is a willingness to do something about > this > > > > > >>>> but we need > > > > > >>>> your feedback. How would you categorize the concerns that S > and > > > > > >>>> LiftRules > > > > > >>>> address? How would you like to see that categorization > reflected > > > > > >>>> in the API? > > > > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > > > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > > > > > >> Groups "Lift" group. > > > > > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> . > > > > > >> For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > > > groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en > > > > > >> . > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > > > > > > Groups "Lift" group. > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > > > groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > "Lift" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > "Lift" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net > > > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 > > > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp > > > Surf the harmonics > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Lift" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Lift" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > <liftweb%[email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > > > > > > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > James A Barrows > > > > > > -- > James A Barrows > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lift" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
