Sorry for being late in the discussion, just a few words from a Sugar
module maintainer's point of few.
I don't think the tool we used was the bottleneck. Of course there could
have been some enhancements (like reminders to the ml), but in general
it was ok. I personally had just too many
I have been trying to keep quite about this until we have had results
flowing in Over the past couple of months Bernie, Caroline, and I
have been looking at businesses around Sugar and OLPC. One of the
ideas that we are exploring is service and support for deployments.
As such, we are
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 22:00, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote:
El Fri, 30-04-2010 a las 10:49 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso escribió:
What's the problem with plain email reviews that we're trying to solve
with bug trackers and fancy review tools?
It's useful to have the patches tracked and
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 18:49, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote:
El Wed, 28-04-2010 a las 18:41 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso escribió:
Several contributors are hindered or even put off by the current
process. It often takes more time to handle mere technicalities (save
patch to file, create
El Fri, 30-04-2010 a las 10:49 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso escribió:
What's the problem with plain email reviews that we're trying to solve
with bug trackers and fancy review tools?
It's useful to have the patches tracked and related to the bug report.
Yes, but not all patches are related to bug
El Wed, 28-04-2010 a las 18:41 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso escribió:
Several contributors are hindered or even put off by the current
process. It often takes more time to handle mere technicalities (save
patch to file, create ticket in Trac, attach patch, wait for review,
push) than it takes to
Hi!
Bernie, Tomeu and I had a nice discussion regarding the Code Review
process on #sugar yesterday. To sum it up:
Several contributors are hindered or even put off by the current
process. It often takes more time to handle mere technicalities (save
patch to file, create ticket in Trac,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 09:37:54AM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 15:17 +1000, James Cameron wrote:
Activities too? I've been tracking #1571 for months now, and if posting
the patch here will work, I'm all for it. ;-)
If you were just asking whether it's ok to post
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:46, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 18:26 +0200, Sascha Silbe wrote:
We'd like to try a different approach that's used by many successful
projects - both small and large ones.
Patches are sent to sugar-devel for review. Every Sugar
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:43:33PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
Cannot find the rest of Sascha's email, was it sent to a list?
Yes, see [1]. Did gmail filter me out as SPAM again? Maybe you should
deactivate the gmail SPAM filter for sugar-devel; we seem to have rather
good filters on the list
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 15:17 +1000, James Cameron wrote:
Activities too? I've been tracking #1571 for months now, and if posting
the patch here will work, I'm all for it. ;-)
If you were just asking whether it's ok to post patches for activities
here, sure: we have no separate mailing list for
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 18:26 +0200, Sascha Silbe wrote:
We'd like to try a different approach that's used by many successful
projects - both small and large ones.
Patches are sent to sugar-devel for review. Every Sugar developer (*)
can review patches (and multiple reviews are quite welcome).
Activities too? I've been tracking #1571 for months now, and if posting
the patch here will work, I'm all for it. ;-)
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
Hi!
Bernie, Tomeu and I had a nice discussion regarding the Code Review
process on #sugar yesterday. To sum it up:
Several contributors are hindered or even put off by the current
process. It often takes more time to handle mere technicalities (save
patch to file, create ticket in Trac,
14 matches
Mail list logo
