Hi, Probably I did not understand how a new addition to the code is supposed to work ...
I received commit rights some times ago. I've been using them very carefully, since I don't want to force anything and prefer to know the feelings about design / architecture of other devs before adding something. I consider this to be a good practice. But it becomes problematic when deadlines should be met, usually because funders have to know with some confidence in which release a new feature is going to be included. And I thought in this case if minor aspects (or even bugs) of a PR is being discussed as the feature freeze is pronounced, the PR could be merged provided fixes will be delivered asap (including during the freeze). #2189 had a bit more bugs than I initially thought (UI parts are not always easy to test), but I don't think it has major design issues ... and I am not sure other devs think it has (Nyall ? Martin ?). So I don't understand why it's stuck. In this situation it's exactly as if I've been granted useless commit rights ... The #2322 is a little bit more of a hack, so I recognize there may be matter of discussion (Jürgen ? Marco ?) On 01/10/2015 09:48, Nathan Woodrow wrote: > +1 to merge if other devs agree > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 5:45 pm Hugo Mercier <hugo.merc...@oslandia.com > <mailto:hugo.merc...@oslandia.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > I've submitted two Pull Requests : > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/2189 and > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/2322 that stay in a undetermined > state ... > > The first one (2189) is of particular interest here. It has been opened > in the beginning of July and I've been fixing issues spotted by others > (mostly Nyall), unfortunately at a lower pace than I would have liked, > busy on other projects. > > But agreement from other devs seemed needed to accept it. And ... this > agreement never came before the beginning of the feature freeze ... > So can you confirm this is now out of the scope of the 2.12 ? Or is > there a chance this would be an exception ? > > I guess this happened because everyone is busy, but it is not an easy > situation for me. > It becomes hard to target a particular release version when selling the > integration of new features and then it does not enforce confidence of > funders, I think. > > Do you see solutions to that for the future ? Probably the problem is > that integration of paid development depends on decisions made by > third-party developers that do their best to review PRs, but without > guarantee (i.e. are not paid specifically for that). What do you think ? > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer