Re: [Sugar-devel] critical vs pinned repositories, was New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

This thread illustrates the crazy situation we have put ourselves in. Now we don't use github because we have too many repositories. The simple solution is to separate repositories into a Sugar collection and an Activity collection. The use of fructose (and honey,...) should be deprecated.

Re: [Sugar-devel] critical vs pinned repositories, was New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:02 PM, James Cameron wrote: > My list of critical repositories was on a thread focused on Sugar > desktop and Python activity code review. It is less relevant for > Sugar Labs as a whole. > > The mismatch at heart is GitHub's scalability of features

Re: [Sugar-devel] critical vs pinned repositories, was New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

My list of critical repositories was on a thread focused on Sugar desktop and Python activity code review. It is less relevant for Sugar Labs as a whole. The mismatch at heart is GitHub's scalability of features for large open source projects with many repositories. We have 292 at the moment.

Re: [Sugar-devel] critical vs pinned repositories, was New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

One simple thing we might do is do something with the naming scheme of the activities themselves. turtle-art-fructose bounce-honey so a search for fructose would bring up all of the fructose activities. We could also do this with "topics", but it would be a github-specific solution. As far

[Sugar-devel] critical vs pinned repositories, was New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 08:55:12AM +1100, James Cameron wrote: > Information below may be of help to guide you in this task. [...] I find helpful this enumeration of critical repositories. This gives me a personal TODO list to make sure I'm following more of them than I do now. In checking