Heya,
Should we go ahead then? Sri, let's go with #gnome and #engagement for now? If
the bridge works out well, we can move more channels to it soon.
I believe only thing needed is Matthew to set it up in matrix.org and gimpe.net
opers set it up the bridge right?
Best regards,
Carlos
A clarification:
By "moving more channels to it" I mean "implement the bridge in more channels"
if we see it is successful and we like the outcome. I didn't mean to retire IRC
channels at all.
Best regards,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
Subject: Re: Thoughs about
Hey Sri,
I want to see this happen too and I encouraged Alberto to start this thread, he
proposed the same as you, using #newcomers channel as one of the precursors,
since is one of the first channels for new people.
However, I think #newcomers is not the best place to experiment, things are
omg sorry all
Original Message
On 25 Jan 2017, 11:56, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Wed, 2017-01-25 at 05:55 -0500, Carlos Soriano Sanchez wrote:
> Got down again
At least it's a sick note, not a rant like Behdad sent to the wrong
list ;)
Hey,
Good initiative, I agree with the approvals and rejections, except:
For installed tests an coverage... I think we should aim to provide some
minimum quality, and continuous integration and installed tests is something
that really help with this and it's pretty common now for every project.
Thanks Andrea,
I will take into account you are referencing the CodeContributionWorkflow page
from outside the newcomers guided wiki, since we were planing a new revamp,
this might worth to take into account.
Best regards,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
Subject: Github's
Hello Kai!
I'm Carlos Soriano, one of the mentors in GNOME.
It's great you came up with this proposal, and you seem to have a decent
understanding of the technologies involved, it's great to see you would like to
tackle this part of the stack. Everyone will love seeing work on this!
Did you
Hello Armin,
I'm Carlos Soriano, one of the mentors in GNOME.
This project idea looks like a key project for GNOME and I'm sure all of us are
looking forward to see it happen!
I read your proposal and the points outlined and goals looks good. I understand
the complexity of Mutter + Wayland
Hello Walter,
Yes, using non-free software for something as important as our infraestructure
is problematic for most of the GNOME community. GitHub is not a feasible option
for the time being. Other alternatives that are free software can be and are
being taken into account, and that's the
Oh I actually talked with Matthew today about this and opened a new bug:
https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-irc/issues/390 . In this case
this is for disabling the spam filter they have so any non-registered user can
talk with matrix users.
Also regarding Michael advice of not
Hello all,
GNOME was again accepted for GSoC! \\o//
Thanks to the mentors who've already listed GSoC project ideas! We currently
have only around 16 GSoC ideas, it would be excellent to have at least four
more mentors with new ideas for this round, as we are used to be one of the
biggest
I think installed test etc it's not going to happen or be maintained if we
don't enable coverage with it too. I think that's the actual trick that will
keep us up with the initiative.
So I would go with both since the start, and together.
Best regards,
Carlos Soriano
Original
Excellent news we have matrix bridge, thanks Matthew!
I'm missing some rooms though, like #nautilus or #gnome-photos etc. Are they on
the bridge and the search is having problems to find them or are they out for
some reason?
Best regards,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
<csori...@protonmail.com>
Matthew Hodgson <matt...@matrix.org>, Desktop Development List
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org> wrote:
> I'm missing some rooms though, like #na
This is done now in
https://git.gnome.org/browse/nautilus/commit/?id=365ec7f7ac1cec51dc0248dd05b17cb78252a788
Thanks all for the input!
Best,
Carlos Soriano
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
> Local Time: May 28, 2017 3:30 PM
> UTC Time: May 28,
Hello Emmanuele,
Would be fine if the maintainer does the patch for continuous instead of doing
the build-API?
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
Subject: For projects switching to Meson *only*
Local Time: 27 April 2017 10:45 AM
UTC Time: 27 April 2017 08:45
From:
Is there some public place that offer something similar as AskFedora to create
a community for GNOME?
I think one requirement for us is to not host it ourselves, and still be
relevant.
I guess that's why Sri choose Stackexchange. But I don't know other
alternatives.
Carlos Soriano
There are few by error.
The important cases are lineup-parameters used for uncrustify, and the
threatics part from gnome-builder.
However, we already spent time on implementing our own thing in the past with
git-archive-all (GPLv3+) when meson couldn't handle it, so I would like to
prevent this
Heya,
Good discussion, nice input from everyone involved!
I summarized what we have so far in a new page with community input in
https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure/CommunityInput
Keep in mind I tried to extract the most important points, to have an effective
list of
Hello Richard,
Glad to hear that. Could you mention what projects relevant for GNOME (either
part of GNOME already or not) that you are maintainer of would benefit of a
transition to GitLab?
In this way we can evaluate the positive impact this initiative would have.
Cheers,
Carlos Soriano
Hello Tristan,
Glad to hear you are positive about the change!
Regarding your concerns, all of them are currently being work by GitLab. A good
example to know whether GitLab can handle big projects it's to look at GitLab
itself as we mention in the wiki, here:
ori...@protonmail.com>
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org <desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>
On 17 May 2017 at 03:57, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org> wrote:
> Hello Mattias,
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughs!
>
> Your concern is about using f
So the main problem is autotools rebuilds everything when switching branches,
even if the files didn't change?
That's sounds very strange, autotools builds based on mtime of the files, and I
checked this personally.
Are you sure of the reason of this situation? Could it be because the branch is
Hey Bastien,
Not sure if you read the wiki and the workflow we outlined in there, since we
mention how this works. You will realize that's not necessary for you, neither
a git-bz alternative since you will use just git:
- git-bz apply equals to git checkout remoteBranch
- git-bz attach equals
Hey Jehan,
Knowing that core contributors like you and GIMP maintainers will have access
to the repo, are the sporadic contributions still many enough enough for
fetching a remote being inconvenient? Is it because it takes considerably more
time to fetch a repo than download and applying a
Hello Alexandre (I got your name right :P),
The team was composed by people with no previous bias, except Alberto who
initially approached us towards GitLab, and me liking Phab more.
Said that, over the testing period of more than 3 months we evaluated both
options as extensively as possible,
Hello Mattias,
Thanks for sharing your thoughs!
Your concern is about using fast forward merge. Yes, we raised this concern as
the top most important for us, and as we mention in the wiki we have good news,
GitLab team is willing to strongly consider making fast forward merge to CE if
GNOME
Ah, I see what you mean now. But then you can rebase yourself in master right?
And the build time would be exactly the same no?
Best regards,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
Subject: Re: Proposal to deploy GitLab on gnome.org
Local Time: May 17, 2017 2:03 PM
UTC Time: May 17,
Wed, 2017-05-17 at 06:36 -0400, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-
list wrote:
> Hey Bastien,
>
> Not sure if you read the wiki and the workflow we outlined in there,
> since we mention how this works. You will realize that's not
> necessary for you, neither a git-bz alternative si
Hey A. Walton,
Relicensing from gpl2+ (supposed current nautilus) to lgpl2+ (current gtk+)
requires agreement of all copyright holders, and the software license is free
software one.
Relicensing from gpl3+ requires ecxactly the same process, and both are still
free software licenses.
Do you
org
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>, Frederic Crozat <f...@crozat.net>
On 18/05/17 18:22, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After asking some authors of the current code that we have as GPL3+ inside
> nautilus, and pondering for a while, I realized the practi
Hello,
After asking some authors of the current code that we have as GPL3+ inside
nautilus, and pondering for a while, I realized the practicity of moving away
from that code or convince those authors to relicense as GPL2+ is more a burden
than the real benefit.
The only problem that arises
gt;
017-05-18 18:22 GMT+02:00 Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>:
> The only problem that arises if Nautilus becomes GPL3+ as per yesteday
> discussion in IRC at #gnome-hackers is that extensions that are GPL2-only
> cannot be used anymore.
> Ke
Ah thanks Luis, I'll take that into account
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
Original Message
On 28 May 2017, 13:01, Luis Menina wrote:
Hi,
Le 25/05/2017 à 14:48, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list a écrit :
> Thanks Michael, looks interesting and seems there are enough reas
Hey Felipe,
What is that you are no fan of in the merge request workflow? Would a command
line application thay works similarly to git bz fox these issues?
Regarding useless forks, why is that a problem? (Definitely something to take
care on our infra though if it grows too big)
Cheers
Aha!
I still get different opinions from different people on that. But that makes
sense to me. Probably makes sense to relicense the files too at some point, but
that would be a later decision.
Do you know any advantage of relicensing the files themselves?
Best,
Carlos Soriano
Thanks Sebastien!
For now we won't relicense the files, since that would require copyright
holders to agree (iiuc). Instead is the project that will become GPL3+, since
the combination of GPL2+ + GPL3+ files results in a project that is GPL3+.
Best,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
The project, not everyfile. It's more like accepting that Nautilus is gpl3+ now
since some files are gpl3+ already. That's what I mean by re licensing.
Best,
Carlos Soriano
Original Message
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 25, 2017 12:36 PM
UTC Time:
Local Time: May 25, 2017 2:07 PM
UTC Time: May 25, 2017 12:07 PM
From: mike.catanz...@gmail.com
To: Carlos Soriano <csori...@protonmail.com>
Sébastien Wilmet <swil...@gnome.org>, desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Carlos So
o Monfort
<poch...@gmail.com>
release-t...@gnome.org <release-t...@gnome.org>, nautilus-l...@gnome.org
<nautilus-l...@gnome.org>, desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
<desktop-devel-list@gnome.org>, Frederic Crozat <f...@crozat.net>
On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 13:50 -0400, Carlo
Ah yes, my bad. For some reason my mind didn't accept the "GPL2-only is
compatible with GPL2+". All clear now.
Original Message
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 19, 2017 12:05 AM
UTC Time: May 18, 2017 10:05 PM
From: had...@hadess.net
To: Carlos
Michael, Ray,
That's a nice discussion to have, but a goal on the initiative was to try to
match what we have now (with the inherited niceties for those workflow/use
cases), with the less disruption possible, while keeping the "nice things we
could do" for a later case-by-case evaluation.
My
Hello Hubert,
Glad to hear you are supportive of the idea.
Regarding your questions:
1- will URL to cgit be remapped to the gitlab instance?
Last time I checked with Andrea and Alberto that was the plan.
2- what are the migration plans for bugzilla: bugzilla URL, bug numbers and the
actual
And in case you missed it in planet.gnome.org, I made a write up on how the
board works nowadays, why you should and why you definitely can run for the
board, read it!
https://csoriano.pages.gitlab.gnome.org/csoriano-blog/post/2019-05-27-why-you-can-and-should-apply-for-the-board/
On Wed, 29 May
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 10:48, Carlos Soriano wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Good news! Thanks to OpenAtMicrosoft and our staff we have set up a
> Windows runner for the GNOME/ group. Right now it's a single runner with
> the "windows" tag attached, feel free to use it as you see fit.
>
> *How to use
Hi everyone,
Good news! Thanks to OpenAtMicrosoft and our staff we have set up a Windows
runner for the GNOME/ group. Right now it's a single runner with the
"windows" tag attached, feel free to use it as you see fit.
*How to use it*
Here's is an example on how to use a specific runner with a
Hi folks,
We been in contact with Matthew from Matrix for some time already. I lately
didn't have much time to invest on this, so we had have some delays on
answering. However, it's our expectation that with the set up that we have
right now the IRC bridge should perform as its best, as we are
ong massively as a first class native Matrix GTK
> client (assuming they want to use it! :)
>
> So, TL;DR: we've had a solution to much of the Matrix<->IRC problems since
> April 2019, we just need to actually use it.
>
> I'm sorry this has taken so long to sort out - I genuinely hadn
48 matches
Mail list logo
