Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Adam Nelson wrote: > I guess I'll jump in and start triaging.  What about a ticket like > this: > > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2284 > > Super-ambiguous.  There are dozens of tickets like this that are > frozen in time with no way for

Re: Process discussion: reboot

I guess I'll jump in and start triaging. What about a ticket like this: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2284 Super-ambiguous. There are dozens of tickets like this that are frozen in time with no way for anybody to know what's going on. Maybe there just needs to be a better way to handle

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:21 pm, Adam Nelson wrote: > >> 2. Assign all of these tickets to 1.3 and nothing else: >> >> http://code.djangoproject.com/query?status=new=assigned... > > A, only 900 tickets to work

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Apr 22, 1:21 pm, Adam Nelson wrote: > 2. Assign all of these tickets to 1.3 and nothing else: > > http://code.djangoproject.com/query?status=new=assigned... A, only 900 tickets to work through for 1.3? Don't go too easy on the core team! ;-) All the best, - Gabriel

Re: Process discussion: reboot

After reading through this entire thread it seems that there are a few points to be consolidated: 1. DVCS concerns should be pushed to 1.4+ and in the meantime, mirrors are fine. 2. The management of the current Trac system has organizational issues - i.e. many people don't know who committers

Re: Process discussion: reboot

The plan to make 1.3 a feature light release with focus on fixing old bugs and tickets, was a good one. I have some tickets in trac which are quite old, too. But it has been a very long time, since I reviewed tickets of other people, too. Sometimes I think the development process is slow. But

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Hello, I'm glad someone from the core development team brings this up. I've lost motivation to contribute to Django after the many failed attempts to improve WSGI support. I consider myself of the users Shawn Milochik describes: "There is frustration on the part of some Django users who would

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Giuseppe Ciotta wrote: >> Having an additional field{s} in the ticket, only accessible to core >> developers, where they would put the "official" (as in: approved

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Thanks for the advice. Trying to make a contribution is why I'm here. That's why I worry about version control systems. Last time I tried to contribute to an open source project via a "semi-official mirror" (this one actually run by a core developer) it did not work and I ended up having to

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:18 AM, SmileyChris wrote: > ... And it seems like i'm reiterating the discussion about > http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/TicketChangeHelp > > I'm advocating for the friendly text in the ticket page itself, as I'm > not sure that was

Re: Process discussion: reboot

This sounds like a great idea to me. +1 for me. I've a been a bit reluctant to up my participation for a variety of reasons, but kind of knowing how best to proceed is one of the large ones. Thanks, Paul On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Stephen Crosby wrote: > What

Re: Process discussion: reboot

... And it seems like i'm reiterating the discussion about http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/TicketChangeHelp I'm advocating for the friendly text in the ticket page itself, as I'm not sure that was specifically mentioned in the related part of this thread (but probably implied) On Apr 21,

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Robert Coup > wrote: > >> I can write you a trac extension/patch - just didn't want to spend the >> time on it if nobody was keen. May be as simple as

Re: Process discussion: reboot

I just built something in a similar vein as this for my team's internal use. Amusingly, I used Django's inspectdb feature to directly interface with Redmine's database and provide a separate front-end. The data feeds into a javascript graphing library. The ability to visualize languishing issues,

Re: Process discussion: reboot

That sounds like a great idea! Even having been at this for a few months I'd watch it just to see how somebody else handles things. On Apr 20, 10:55 am, Alex Gaynor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Bmheight wrote: > > +1 to Stephen Crosbys'

Re: Process discussion: reboot

That's awesome. I'll definitely add to that when I have some time tonight. On Apr 20, 2:49 pm, Robert Coup wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > > I like this a lot. Especially the "your next steps" part - it

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Robert Coup wrote: > Tada... http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/TicketChangeHelp > > Most of it is empty - please help fill it in! This is an awesome start - thanks! I'll try to help fill stuff in and edit for tone/style as I can.

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > I like this a lot. Especially the "your next steps" part - it makes it > very obvious what the next thing interested parties should do is. > > Could you start a wiki page with this stuff? Until we figure out how > to

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: ... > So: here's your chance. You have suggestions about Django's > development process? Make them. I'm listening. I have a perception that there are some phases of the ticket lifecycle where things get stuck -- I

Re: Process discussion: reboot

+1 I would also be willing to contribute some time in developing this Wiki page, editing, etc. On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Robert Coup wrote: Idea #1: When a ticket is currently closed Trac sends you an

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Robert Coup wrote: > Idea #1: > When a ticket is currently closed Trac sends you an email saying > "status:closed resolution:wontfix" and whatever comment is made by the > person who closed it. > How about a plugin for Trac that

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Hi all, On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Gabriel Hurley wrote: > When I finally did submit my first patch, I was terrified of getting > it wrong and having it rejected. I'd seen it happen on other tickets. > As a project, I'm sure we don't want any (even potential)

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Also a +1 from me on the proposal for a tutorial for contributing and how to get into the process of using Django's trac. I also tried to get into triaging tickets a few times but I was very unsure in most cases how to handle the status of the tickets, how to decide what needs to be done or if

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Tuesday 20 April 2010 16:43:25 Alex Gaynor wrote: > In general I don't think that the fields on tickets are nearly as > liable to being inaccurate as people are making it sound. That > said marking users who are committers or triagers or what not > probably wouldn't hurt. Since our

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Bmheight wrote: > +1 to Stephen Crosbys' proposal, although I think this would be a bit > difficult to perform as the Framework evolves and the documentation on this > would be a bit outdated as time goes on (And have to yet again maintain >

Re: Process discussion: reboot

+1 to Stephen Crosbys' proposal, although I think this would be a bit difficult to perform as the Framework evolves and the documentation on this would be a bit outdated as time goes on (And have to yet again maintain another Document to keep up to date). It it still none the less a good idea in

Re: Process discussion: reboot

What could be very helpful here is some education for would-be Django developers. The tutorial format has worked so well for educating new Django users, why not apply it also to Django developers also? After the 1.2 release, why don't we come up with a Django developers tutorial that walks us

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote: > When I finally did submit my first patch, I was terrified of getting > it wrong and having it rejected. I'd seen it happen on other tickets. > It wasn't until I got *more involved* and started keeping up with the > trac

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Giuseppe Ciotta wrote: >> Having an additional field{s} in the ticket, only accessible to core >> developers, where they would put the "official" (as in: approved

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Giuseppe Ciotta wrote: > Having an additional field{s} in the ticket, only accessible to core > developers, where they would put the "official" (as in: approved by a > core developer) triage status of the ticket, could improve the > efficency of

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > Hi folks -- > > I'd like to try to reboot the discussion that's been going on about > Django's development process. > > I'm finding the current thread incredibly demoralizing: there's a > bunch of frustration being

Re: Process discussion: reboot

The DVCS conversation has been had many times over the last year or two on this list and in other places. I mention this not to say that you should know already as it isn't clearly documented, but as a suggestion that you should make sure that you are bringing something new and concrete to the

Re: Process discussion: reboot

If you contribute to open source projects, at one point you'll be faced with the forced choice to use git. It is extremely popular (I believe it's the most popular after svn), and unlike svn it's popular for a good reason. However, hg is decent as well; whatever the django team chooses, as long as

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Not to start a flame war --- but PLEASE! don't use git. I already have to use the other two leading DVCS's and all three are one too many. I personally prefer bazaar, but python itself and pywin32 are both committed to mercurial. I suspect that hg would be a better choice for most people. --

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Apr 19, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Mike wrote: > For the project of such exposure as Django the number of _active_ core > members that actually do work on trunk and are participating in the > decision making process is extremely small. Quick and dirty statistic > on > trunk commits shows that more

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Once I understand what I am doing I would have no problem putting together an "ebb and flow" diagram with pointers to codesomething like...Step 1 Request Made--When a request is made the first thing that happens is def AutoStart is activated, next, def SecondStart is fired (with pictures). On

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Apr 19, 10:19 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > Hi folks -- > > I'd like to try to reboot the discussion that's been going on about > Django's development process. > > I'm finding the current thread incredibly demoralizing: there's a > bunch of frustration being expressed, and

Re: Process discussion: reboot

I have to agree with Gabriel here as I to have only recently been trying to actively participate in the growing experience that is Django. Though I haven't quite yet made the jump into actually contributing code yet as I'm still coming to terms with understanding the internals of both the code and

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Before I even say anything: I think the core team does a great job, they're as fair as humanly possible in their decisions, and Django's stability is amazing. My disclaimer out of the way, I'd like to share my own experience of being a new contributor just to add another perspective. I only

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > So: here's your chance. You have suggestions about Django's > development process? Make them. I'm listening. My understanding is that write access to triage stage and tickets details is granted to everybody (even to

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:24 PM, orokusaki wrote: > Jacob, I just refreshed. Please don't kick me. I'm trying to have a > dialogue, and I'm not trolling. Django is my life, and I want to help. Then prove it. Ball's in your court. Jacob -- You received this message

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:23 PM, orokusaki wrote: > --  No matter what industry you're in, or what your title is, your > real job is "Sales Person". Your second job is "Customer Service", and > finally your third job is "[Insert Job Title Here]". Dammit, this isn't my

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Jacob, I just refreshed. Please don't kick me. I'm trying to have a dialogue, and I'm not trolling. Django is my life, and I want to help. On Apr 19, 11:20 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, orokusaki wrote: > >

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On a broader note, let me give you a bit of history. I started my career as a customer service person. I managed Staples Business Services department in my local Staples. Before I decided to learn programming a couple years ago at 24, I learned a valuable lesson: -- No matter what industry

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, orokusaki wrote: > Firstly, thanks to Jacob for the highly hostile nature of his bedside > manor. > > Secondly, I didn't assert anything. I merely referenced the docs (I > suppose this will be another case where you simply adjust the

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, orokusaki wrote: > Firstly, thanks to Jacob for the highly hostile nature of his bedside > manor. Please, just stop. This doesn't help. > Secondly, I didn't assert anything. I merely referenced the docs (I > suppose this will be

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Firstly, thanks to Jacob for the highly hostile nature of his bedside manor. Secondly, I didn't assert anything. I merely referenced the docs (I suppose this will be another case where you simply adjust the docs to mirror your recent assertion)

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:38 AM, David Zhou wrote: >> The specific number of point releases to remain compatible with can >> probably be quibbled over, but I think the point is that maintaining >>

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote: > I've been thinking of starting a proper contribution in django in a > similar way: a github repo with per-ticket branches that are trunk-ready > and regularly updated (rebased) against trunk until they are

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:38 AM, David Zhou wrote: > The specific number of point releases to remain compatible with can > probably be quibbled over, but I think the point is that maintaining > across the entirety of 1.x releases when point releases take this long > can be

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On ma, 2010-04-19 at 15:47 +, Peter Landry wrote: > > > On 4/19/10 11:41 AM, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Peter Landry wrote: > >> One suggestion that jumped out at me (which I admittedly know very little > >>

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On 4/19/10 11:41 AM, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Peter Landry wrote: >> One suggestion that jumped out at me (which I admittedly know very little >> history about with regards to Django or other projects) was the

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Yes, thank you David. On Apr 19, 9:38 am, David Zhou wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss > wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM, orokusaki > > wrote: > >> The release of Django 1.0 comes with a

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Peter Landry wrote: > One suggestion that jumped out at me (which I admittedly know very little > history about with regards to Django or other projects) was the "trunk > ready" branch(es) [1]. Perhaps an effort to outline what that process

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Absolutely not. I'm saying the following: 1.1 works with 1.0 1.2 works with 1.1 1.3 works with 1.2 and 1.2 works (with slight modifications) with 1.0 1.3 works (with slight modifications) with 1.1 1.4 works (with slight modifications) with 1.2 On Apr 19, 9:31 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM, orokusaki wrote: >> The release of Django 1.0 comes with a promise of API stability and >> forwards-compatibility. In a nutshell, this means that code you

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM, orokusaki wrote: > The release of Django 1.0 comes with a promise of API stability and > forwards-compatibility. In a nutshell, this means that code you > develop against Django 1.0 will continue to work against 1.1 > unchanged, and you

Re: Process discussion: reboot

CURRENT VERSION OF API STABILITY POLICY: The release of Django 1.0 comes with a promise of API stability and forwards-compatibility. In a nutshell, this means that code you develop against Django 1.0 will continue to work against 1.1 unchanged, and you should need to make only minor changes for

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Peter Landry wrote: > On 4/19/10 10:19 AM, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" wrote: > >> Hi folks -- >> >> I'd like to try to reboot the discussion that's been going on about >> Django's development process. >> >> I'm finding the

Re: Process discussion: reboot

I think that there is frustration on the part of the core dev team because people are (intentionally or not) demanding more and more of their time in the form of feature requests without understanding what the costs are and what resources exist. There is frustration on the part of some Django

Re: Process discussion: reboot

On 4/19/10 10:19 AM, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" wrote: > Hi folks -- > > I'd like to try to reboot the discussion that's been going on about > Django's development process. > > I'm finding the current thread incredibly demoralizing: there's a > bunch of frustration being

Process discussion: reboot

Hi folks -- I'd like to try to reboot the discussion that's been going on about Django's development process. I'm finding the current thread incredibly demoralizing: there's a bunch of frustration being expressed, and I hear that, but I'm having trouble finding any concrete suggestions. Instead,