On 26 November 2012 20:17, Andrea Aime wrote:
> I am under the impression none of the documents above convey two important
> bits:
> - the need to discuss on the mailing list any non trivial change, and in
> particular any API changes
> - the presence of tests for changes
>
Just had a look at thi
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> A big +1 for this. A README in the root of repo will go a far way i think.
> Some links for it that could be relevant (at least on the GeoServer side):
>
> http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/patches.html (even
> has a
A big +1 for this. A README in the root of repo will go a far way i think.
Some links for it that could be relevant (at least on the GeoServer side):
http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/patches.html (even
has a section on pull requests)
http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/develo
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Mark Prins wrote:
> Github also has CONTRIBUTING.md which is a magic file[1]. It shows up when
> creating a pull request and/or issue in the web interface with the message
> "Please review the guidelines for contributing to this repository."
>
> But a README is st
2012/11/25 Andrea Aime
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Now, I've noticed that none of the projects have a README in the root
that would be
> rendered by GitHub in the project home page, and GitHub is actually
nagging us about it.
> Soo.. how about we dedicate that home page to provide just a few pointers
for
>
Hi,
both Geotools and GeoServer are starting to get their share of "problematic"
pull requests so I've started this thread (sorry for the cross post) to
discuss
if we can do anything about it.
Basically, in both projects we have seen at least one pull request so far
that was
coded by someone compl
