Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 18:20, Sascha Silbe sascha-ml-reply-to-201...@silbe.org wrote: Excerpts from Tomeu Vizoso's message of Thu Aug 05 09:04:44 +0200 2010: The problem with this is that often the owner is not around when needed. If gitorious doesn't have more sofisticated rights management I propose creating a group account and sharing the password between several people. This should rarely be an issue. If I have taken the time to write the initial email is because it has been an issue. Regards, Tomeu The review process usually takes several weeks anyway, so another day for granting rights doesn't matter; even more so since it only needs to happen once per new contributor. Nevertheless I hope that the upcoming gitorious upgrade will fix this. Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
Excerpts from Tomeu Vizoso's message of Thu Aug 05 09:04:44 +0200 2010: The problem with this is that often the owner is not around when needed. If gitorious doesn't have more sofisticated rights management I propose creating a group account and sharing the password between several people. This should rarely be an issue. The review process usually takes several weeks anyway, so another day for granting rights doesn't matter; even more so since it only needs to happen once per new contributor. Nevertheless I hope that the upcoming gitorious upgrade will fix this. Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 02:20, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote: On 6 Aug 2010, at 13:35, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: I was just throwing in the idea here. I will bother you further only once I have a realistic plan in mind (and confidence in the ability to execute it with our limited resources) :) Sorry if I sounded harsh, I wanted to explain why some reforms are not going forward yet even if people agree are necessary. Oh, no worries, I don't think you sounded harsh at all. That's actually the other thing I'm planning to look into. Maybe I'm mistake but I feel we are stuck with a review process most of the existing contributors are unhappy with. I can work on a formal proposal and try to reach consensus, if that's what is missing... Sounds great, though I have felt that there was a bit of misdirected frustration during that conversation. As in the real problem not being the process but the slow response due to the lack of maintainers? The real problem being that contributing to FOSS can be very frustrating if you are not an expert already and there isn't a big effort in place to support new contributors. Maintainers are in a very good position to help new contributors but that doesn't mean that nobody else can do something about it. See for example the recent trend on sending patches to the mailing list for reviews and comments, then submitting for acceptance. It should have improved a lot the experience for new contributors and we didn't had to wait for any maintainer to do anything. Similarly, if creating trac tickets is so hard for a significant segment of our contributors, then we can create simplified forms or establish some sort of aggregator that submits those reports aftert some consolidation, translation and triaging, as is being discussed in another thread. If putting patches in a queue is too much of a hassle, we could have the figure of the Patch Manager, or write a tool similar to git-bz. http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.html#patch-manager http://git.fishsoup.net/man/git-bz.html (it's python and git, we just need to replace bugzilla with trac) If having the queue in trac is too obscure because making a query is hard, we could make the automated report you wrote to point to bugs.sugarlabs.org and this mailing list. http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/sugar-jhbuild/repos/mainline/blobs/master/scripts/report.py#line12 But there are apparently no resources to do any of this, so we turn to discuss about the process in the hope that we find one that allows us to do more without having to work more. If distros drop a platform dependency in the same release where the replacement lands (what happens with gnome-python2-desktop in Fedora 14), it means that everybody needs to build that dependency until they update to that release. Moreover, if some distros only include the new dependency at a later release (as with Ubuntu Maverick and Gtk3), contributors running one of those distros need to build more stuff for longer. My feeling is that these are a bit of special situations due to the dynamic bindings migration and gtk 3, I don't see they happening normally. Also it seems like they will hurt in the same way when we actually get to package Sugar on these distributions. Agreed, but if we keep Sugar aligned with the GNOME platform, then we need to worry mostly about these transition phases. We can reduce the harm by keeping PPA-like repos for the distros that need it (what the telepathy guys do for Ubuntu), but then someone needs to do that work. I wouldn't spend resources on this, it's error prone and time consuming. In summary, I'm able to see the importance of making as easy as possible running latest sugar on all distros, but I'm afraid it's one more goal we want to attain but don't know how to resource. To be clear, my goal is not to support all distro. I think it would be reasonable to say that you need the latest Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu to be able to build Sugar without messing with dependencies. I think there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem here. Making it easy to start developing Sugar is probably one of the best ways to increase the resources we can spend on user visible improvements. I'm afraid for the next 2-3 release cycles Fedora is going to force us to make some changes in our dependencies that will make that more difficult on Debian and Ubuntu. Regards, Tomeu Marco ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 07:19, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:05:24AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 01:47, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote: On 6 Aug 2010, at 00:20, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:06:03AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: Another option is having some script that adds committers to all sugar core modules in one go, that would be similar to what GNOME does. There are too many core modules, in my opinion (and Michael Stone's). ?I see no good reason why there isn't just one git repository for the whole of Sugar. Yeah, I think we need to look into merging core in a single repository. At the end it's basically the same problem we find again and again: we spend days-person discussing some big changes, eventually may reach an agreement (or not), then nobody finds time to actually do the work. Michael Stone did it. I tested it on an XO. It worked. Our software doesn't get into hands of children in that way. It requires the work of individuals such as Jonas, Peter, Aleksey and many others and any discussion on such a change should have included their point of view. It happened with the code review process and I see very well it happening here because it would require coordination with packagers, updating lots of wiki pages, etc. Well, apart from the actual code and git repository changes, there's nothing obvious that needs fixing. It's the code that counts. I don't go looking for trouble in Wiki pages or packagers. Wiki pages that document code should be in the code repository, not in the Wiki. Packagers can be told what the changes are and they will adjust wonderfully. Are you suggesting to just leave the wiki pointing to obsolete repos because you personally don't care about any documentation that is in the wiki? Guess not, but then I don't understand what you are proposing. You seem to think something else is required to complete this task, but I knew nothing of those things. Perhaps that is why things are not completed? Such a change requires that somebody presents a serious plan. As things are now, as a maintainer I would need to do quite a bit of work to make sure that the change can be made without serious negative consequences. I appreciate that it's very important to make it easier to install our development environment, but if you expect me to do that work now, you are asking from me more than what I can give. Regards, Tomeu -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH]Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
Once you discover *where* to go to file a bug report, it is rather easy to file one IMO. My observation is that the filing procedure is somewhat hidden in arcane terminology. Less technically astute persons of interest such as myself can get lost and discouraged when the path is not made plain - and as direct as possible. Art Hunkins - Original Message - From: Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org To: Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org Cc: sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org; James Cameron qu...@laptop.org Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:16 AM Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH]Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing) On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 02:20, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote: On 6 Aug 2010, at 13:35, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: I was just throwing in the idea here. I will bother you further only once I have a realistic plan in mind (and confidence in the ability to execute it with our limited resources) :) Sorry if I sounded harsh, I wanted to explain why some reforms are not going forward yet even if people agree are necessary. Oh, no worries, I don't think you sounded harsh at all. That's actually the other thing I'm planning to look into. Maybe I'm mistake but I feel we are stuck with a review process most of the existing contributors are unhappy with. I can work on a formal proposal and try to reach consensus, if that's what is missing... Sounds great, though I have felt that there was a bit of misdirected frustration during that conversation. As in the real problem not being the process but the slow response due to the lack of maintainers? The real problem being that contributing to FOSS can be very frustrating if you are not an expert already and there isn't a big effort in place to support new contributors. Maintainers are in a very good position to help new contributors but that doesn't mean that nobody else can do something about it. See for example the recent trend on sending patches to the mailing list for reviews and comments, then submitting for acceptance. It should have improved a lot the experience for new contributors and we didn't had to wait for any maintainer to do anything. Similarly, if creating trac tickets is so hard for a significant segment of our contributors, then we can create simplified forms or establish some sort of aggregator that submits those reports aftert some consolidation, translation and triaging, as is being discussed in another thread. If putting patches in a queue is too much of a hassle, we could have the figure of the Patch Manager, or write a tool similar to git-bz. http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.html#patch-manager http://git.fishsoup.net/man/git-bz.html (it's python and git, we just need to replace bugzilla with trac) If having the queue in trac is too obscure because making a query is hard, we could make the automated report you wrote to point to bugs.sugarlabs.org and this mailing list. http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/sugar-jhbuild/repos/mainline/blobs/master/scripts/report.py#line12 But there are apparently no resources to do any of this, so we turn to discuss about the process in the hope that we find one that allows us to do more without having to work more. If distros drop a platform dependency in the same release where the replacement lands (what happens with gnome-python2-desktop in Fedora 14), it means that everybody needs to build that dependency until they update to that release. Moreover, if some distros only include the new dependency at a later release (as with Ubuntu Maverick and Gtk3), contributors running one of those distros need to build more stuff for longer. My feeling is that these are a bit of special situations due to the dynamic bindings migration and gtk 3, I don't see they happening normally. Also it seems like they will hurt in the same way when we actually get to package Sugar on these distributions. Agreed, but if we keep Sugar aligned with the GNOME platform, then we need to worry mostly about these transition phases. We can reduce the harm by keeping PPA-like repos for the distros that need it (what the telepathy guys do for Ubuntu), but then someone needs to do that work. I wouldn't spend resources on this, it's error prone and time consuming. In summary, I'm able to see the importance of making as easy as possible running latest sugar on all distros, but I'm afraid it's one more goal we want to attain but don't know how to resource. To be clear, my goal is not to support all distro. I think it would be reasonable to say that you need the latest Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu to be able to build Sugar without messing with dependencies. I think there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem here. Making it easy to start developing Sugar is probably one of the best ways to increase the resources we can spend on user visible
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:05:24AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 01:47, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote: On 6 Aug 2010, at 00:20, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:06:03AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: Another option is having some script that adds committers to all sugar core modules in one go, that would be similar to what GNOME does. There are too many core modules, in my opinion (and Michael Stone's). ?I see no good reason why there isn't just one git repository for the whole of Sugar. Yeah, I think we need to look into merging core in a single repository. At the end it's basically the same problem we find again and again: we spend days-person discussing some big changes, eventually may reach an agreement (or not), then nobody finds time to actually do the work. Michael Stone did it. I tested it on an XO. It worked. It happened with the code review process and I see very well it happening here because it would require coordination with packagers, updating lots of wiki pages, etc. Well, apart from the actual code and git repository changes, there's nothing obvious that needs fixing. It's the code that counts. I don't go looking for trouble in Wiki pages or packagers. Wiki pages that document code should be in the code repository, not in the Wiki. Packagers can be told what the changes are and they will adjust wonderfully. You seem to think something else is required to complete this task, but I knew nothing of those things. Perhaps that is why things are not completed? -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On 6 Aug 2010, at 13:35, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: I was just throwing in the idea here. I will bother you further only once I have a realistic plan in mind (and confidence in the ability to execute it with our limited resources) :) Sorry if I sounded harsh, I wanted to explain why some reforms are not going forward yet even if people agree are necessary. Oh, no worries, I don't think you sounded harsh at all. That's actually the other thing I'm planning to look into. Maybe I'm mistake but I feel we are stuck with a review process most of the existing contributors are unhappy with. I can work on a formal proposal and try to reach consensus, if that's what is missing... Sounds great, though I have felt that there was a bit of misdirected frustration during that conversation. As in the real problem not being the process but the slow response due to the lack of maintainers? If distros drop a platform dependency in the same release where the replacement lands (what happens with gnome-python2-desktop in Fedora 14), it means that everybody needs to build that dependency until they update to that release. Moreover, if some distros only include the new dependency at a later release (as with Ubuntu Maverick and Gtk3), contributors running one of those distros need to build more stuff for longer. My feeling is that these are a bit of special situations due to the dynamic bindings migration and gtk 3, I don't see they happening normally. Also it seems like they will hurt in the same way when we actually get to package Sugar on these distributions. We can reduce the harm by keeping PPA-like repos for the distros that need it (what the telepathy guys do for Ubuntu), but then someone needs to do that work. I wouldn't spend resources on this, it's error prone and time consuming. In summary, I'm able to see the importance of making as easy as possible running latest sugar on all distros, but I'm afraid it's one more goal we want to attain but don't know how to resource. To be clear, my goal is not to support all distro. I think it would be reasonable to say that you need the latest Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu to be able to build Sugar without messing with dependencies. I think there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem here. Making it easy to start developing Sugar is probably one of the best ways to increase the resources we can spend on user visible improvements. Marco ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 01:47, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote: On 6 Aug 2010, at 00:20, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:06:03AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: Another option is having some script that adds committers to all sugar core modules in one go, that would be similar to what GNOME does. There are too many core modules, in my opinion (and Michael Stone's). I see no good reason why there isn't just one git repository for the whole of Sugar. Yeah, I think we need to look into merging core in a single repository. At the end it's basically the same problem we find again and again: we spend days-person discussing some big changes, eventually may reach an agreement (or not), then nobody finds time to actually do the work. It happened with the code review process and I see very well it happening here because it would require coordination with packagers, updating lots of wiki pages, etc. Not even so much because of the maintenance burden, but because we really need to get to the point where building Sugar on a recent distribution is just cloning one git repository and running ./configure; make install. I'm afraid this won't be always possible no matter what we do because distros such as Fedora are willing to drop stuff that doesn't conform to GNOME 3, while Debian behaves more conservatively. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2010-August/006407.html Regards, Tomeu Marco ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: Yeah, I think we need to look into merging core in a single repository. At the end it's basically the same problem we find again and again: we spend days-person discussing some big changes, eventually may reach an agreement (or not), then nobody finds time to actually do the work. I understand your frustration but we cannot give up on the inability to make big changes. It's a normal situation when a projects gets mature (see the the struggle GNOME had to come up with a plan for 3.0), but it's even more critical for us because we have been forced to stabilize a code base which was not ready to be. I was just throwing in the idea here. I will bother you further only once I have a realistic plan in mind (and confidence in the ability to execute it with our limited resources) :) It happened with the code review process and I see very well it happening here because it would require coordination with packagers, updating lots of wiki pages, etc. That's actually the other thing I'm planning to look into. Maybe I'm mistake but I feel we are stuck with a review process most of the existing contributors are unhappy with. I can work on a formal proposal and try to reach consensus, if that's what is missing... Not even so much because of the maintenance burden, but because we really need to get to the point where building Sugar on a recent distribution is just cloning one git repository and running ./configure; make install. I'm afraid this won't be always possible no matter what we do because distros such as Fedora are willing to drop stuff that doesn't conform to GNOME 3, while Debian behaves more conservatively. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2010-August/006407.html Can you elaborate here? In very simplistic terms, what I'm thinking is that Sugar gets ported to GNOME 3, and then it works both on Fedora and Debian. I'm sure I'm missing something :) Cheers, Marco ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:51, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: Yeah, I think we need to look into merging core in a single repository. At the end it's basically the same problem we find again and again: we spend days-person discussing some big changes, eventually may reach an agreement (or not), then nobody finds time to actually do the work. I understand your frustration but we cannot give up on the inability to make big changes. It's a normal situation when a projects gets mature (see the the struggle GNOME had to come up with a plan for 3.0), but it's even more critical for us because we have been forced to stabilize a code base which was not ready to be. Well, I think we are still able to push a few big changes per release, just not everything people wish. As you say, our fundations aren't really stable yet. I was just throwing in the idea here. I will bother you further only once I have a realistic plan in mind (and confidence in the ability to execute it with our limited resources) :) Sorry if I sounded harsh, I wanted to explain why some reforms are not going forward yet even if people agree are necessary. It happened with the code review process and I see very well it happening here because it would require coordination with packagers, updating lots of wiki pages, etc. That's actually the other thing I'm planning to look into. Maybe I'm mistake but I feel we are stuck with a review process most of the existing contributors are unhappy with. I can work on a formal proposal and try to reach consensus, if that's what is missing... Sounds great, though I have felt that there was a bit of misdirected frustration during that conversation. Not even so much because of the maintenance burden, but because we really need to get to the point where building Sugar on a recent distribution is just cloning one git repository and running ./configure; make install. I'm afraid this won't be always possible no matter what we do because distros such as Fedora are willing to drop stuff that doesn't conform to GNOME 3, while Debian behaves more conservatively. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2010-August/006407.html Can you elaborate here? In very simplistic terms, what I'm thinking is that Sugar gets ported to GNOME 3, and then it works both on Fedora and Debian. I'm sure I'm missing something :) If distros drop a platform dependency in the same release where the replacement lands (what happens with gnome-python2-desktop in Fedora 14), it means that everybody needs to build that dependency until they update to that release. Moreover, if some distros only include the new dependency at a later release (as with Ubuntu Maverick and Gtk3), contributors running one of those distros need to build more stuff for longer. We can reduce the harm by keeping PPA-like repos for the distros that need it (what the telepathy guys do for Ubuntu), but then someone needs to do that work. In summary, I'm able to see the importance of making as easy as possible running latest sugar on all distros, but I'm afraid it's one more goal we want to attain but don't know how to resource. Regards, Tomeu Cheers, Marco ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 21:41, Sascha Silbe sascha-ml-ui-sugar-de...@silbe.org wrote: Excerpts from Tomeu Vizoso's message of Wed Aug 04 20:03:50 +0200 2010: Don't have permissions to push to sugar-tools, gitorious should grow a better way to add committers. erikos (owner of both the sugar-tools project and its mainline repository) should be able to add you as a committer by using the Add committer link [1] on the sugar-tools/mainline repository page [2]. Didn't that work? Or what else is wrong with it? Please be more specific. The problem with this is that often the owner is not around when needed. If gitorious doesn't have more sofisticated rights management I propose creating a group account and sharing the password between several people. Regards, Tomeu Sascha [1] http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/sugar-tools/repos/mainline/committers/new [2] http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/sugar-tools/repos/mainline -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 09:04, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 21:41, Sascha Silbe sascha-ml-ui-sugar-de...@silbe.org wrote: Excerpts from Tomeu Vizoso's message of Wed Aug 04 20:03:50 +0200 2010: Don't have permissions to push to sugar-tools, gitorious should grow a better way to add committers. erikos (owner of both the sugar-tools project and its mainline repository) should be able to add you as a committer by using the Add committer link [1] on the sugar-tools/mainline repository page [2]. Didn't that work? Or what else is wrong with it? Please be more specific. The problem with this is that often the owner is not around when needed. If gitorious doesn't have more sofisticated rights management I propose creating a group account and sharing the password between several people. Another option is having some script that adds committers to all sugar core modules in one go, that would be similar to what GNOME does. Regards, Tomeu Regards, Tomeu Sascha [1] http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/sugar-tools/repos/mainline/committers/new [2] http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/sugar-tools/repos/mainline -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On 6 August 2010 11:20, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:06:03AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: Another option is having some script that adds committers to all sugar core modules in one go, that would be similar to what GNOME does. There are too many core modules, in my opinion (and Michael Stone's). I see no good reason why there isn't just one git repository for the whole of Sugar. +1 ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Adding committers on gitorious (was: Re: [PATCH] Remove nbsp chars from the html string before parsing)
On 6 Aug 2010, at 00:20, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:06:03AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: Another option is having some script that adds committers to all sugar core modules in one go, that would be similar to what GNOME does. There are too many core modules, in my opinion (and Michael Stone's). I see no good reason why there isn't just one git repository for the whole of Sugar. Yeah, I think we need to look into merging core in a single repository. Not even so much because of the maintenance burden, but because we really need to get to the point where building Sugar on a recent distribution is just cloning one git repository and running ./configure; make install. Marco ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
