Re: [Sugar-devel] New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

2018-02-26 Thread Glide 
Congratulations +1.


On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:12 PM, D. Joe  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 08:55:12AM +1100, James Cameron wrote:
>
> > Rahul and Yash, your code contributions have been consistently good for
> > the past month, so I've invited you to the GitHub sugarlabs organisation
> > so that you can review and merge pull requests.
>
> Congratulations and well done to Rahul and Yash. I hope this helps keep the
> time you spend on Sugar productive and rewarding.
>
> Thanks to James for writing up this review process, bringing it forward,
> and
> working to expand the ranks of reviewers this way.
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

2018-02-25 Thread D. Joe 

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 08:55:12AM +1100, James Cameron wrote:

> Rahul and Yash, your code contributions have been consistently good for
> the past month, so I've invited you to the GitHub sugarlabs organisation
> so that you can review and merge pull requests.
  
Congratulations and well done to Rahul and Yash. I hope this helps keep the
time you spend on Sugar productive and rewarding.

Thanks to James for writing up this review process, bringing it forward, and
working to expand the ranks of reviewers this way.

___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

2018-02-23 Thread Samson Goddy 
Congratulations guys...

On Feb 23, 2018 5:01 AM, "Dave Crossland"  wrote:

> Congrats guys!
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

2018-02-22 Thread Dave Crossland 
Congrats guys!
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

2018-02-22 Thread RAHUL BOTHRA 
Respected Sir,

Thank you very much for giving this opprtunity. We are very happy to join
as a reviewer
I have understood the guidelines and the links you provided. I will start
looking at existing reviews, before making any, to ensure consistency

Thanking you once again

Rahul Bothra
@Pro-Panda

+91-7733052890

> Comments?  Should the above be added to sugar-docs?
Although added already, its a yes in my opinion as well.


On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 5:10 AM, James Cameron  wrote:

> Added as
> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/cont
> ributing.md#guide-for-reviewers
>
> Also, if you see me review in a way you don't understand, please ask.
>
> One can _always_ find something to criticise in a review, but one
> should also choose if it is worth the time to do so.  ;-)
>
> My underlying habits also arise from face to face source code reviews
> in an ISO9001 quality control system; in the system we used at Digital
> Equipment Corporation a reviewer could only say what was wrong, and
> was restrained from saying how to fix it unless asked.  This maintains
> the authority and agency of the coder.  But can unnecessarily delay
> merge.
>
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 04:16:08AM +0530, Yash Agrawal wrote:
> > Thank you James for the invitation. We are more than happy to join the
> > organisation and help communtiy in reviewing and merging pull requests.
> :)
> >
> > Thank you for providing such detailed information, I have been through
> all the
> > links you have provided. I understand the role of a reviewer much better
> now.
> >
> > >Should the above be added to sugar-docs?
> > Very well written guidelines for any new member to the organisation. +1
> for
> > sugar-docs from me.
> >
> > Now that my exams are over, I look forward to a more active
> participation.
> > cheers!
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:25 AM, James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Rahul and Yash, your code contributions have been consistently good
> > for the past month, so I've invited you to the GitHub sugarlabs
> > organisation so that you can review and merge pull requests.
> >
> > Information below may be of help to guide you in this task.
> >
> > My goals for review are;
> >
> > - detect trivial mistakes,
> >
> > - maintain consistent and good code quality,
> >
> > - reproduce test results, (especially for critical repositories),
> >
> > - maintain a useful git commit history for use by git bisect, and
> >   developers who read it,
> >
> > - maintain other records, such as issues, tickets, and documentation,
> >
> > - not waste the time of the contributor, by doing myself anything
> >   trivial that otherwise the contributor might have to do.
> >
> > Checklist for review of pull requests;
> >
> > - [ ] does the change have consensus of the community,
> >   [2]https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/
> CODE
> > _OF_CONDUCT.md
> >   (if a reviewer is in doubt, seek opinions by @mentioning
> people)
> >
> > - [ ] does the commit message explain the summary, problem, and
> >   solution, so that it can be used in future analysis,
> >   [3]https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/
> cont
> > ributing.md#making-commits
> >   (if a reviewer can fix it by squash or manual rebase, do so)
> >
> > - [ ] does the commit message reference the issue, [4]
> bugs.sugarlabs.org
> >   ticket number, or downstream ticket numbers,
> >   (if a reviewer can fix it by squash or manual rebase, do so)
> >
> > - [ ] are the number of commits excessive for future analysis,
> >   (a reviewer may squash or rebase if necessary)
> >
> > - [ ] is the changed code consistent in style with the existing code,
> >   [5]https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/
> desk
> > top-activity.md#coding-standards
> >   (on the other hand, expect flake8 changes to be in separate
> commits)
> >
> > - [ ] for critical repositories, does the change work properly on our
> >   latest version of Sugar on either Fedora, Debian, or Ubuntu.
> >
> > Critical repositories are;
> >
> > - sugar, sugar-toolkit, sugar-toolkit-gtk3, sugar-artwork,
> >   sugar-datastore, gst-plugins-espeak,
> >
> > - each of the Fructose activity set repositories,
> >   [6]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Release/Modules#
> > Fructose
> >
> > Comments?  Should the above be added to sugar-docs?
> >
> > --
> > James Cameron
> > [7]http://quozl.netrek.org/
> >
> > References:
> >
> > [1] mailto:qu...@laptop.org
> > [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/CODE
> _OF_CONDUCT.md
> > [3] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/cont
> ributing.md#making-commits
> > [4] http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/
> > [5] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/desk
>

Re: [Sugar-devel] New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

2018-02-22 Thread James Cameron 
Added as
https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/contributing.md#guide-for-reviewers

Also, if you see me review in a way you don't understand, please ask.

One can _always_ find something to criticise in a review, but one
should also choose if it is worth the time to do so.  ;-)

My underlying habits also arise from face to face source code reviews
in an ISO9001 quality control system; in the system we used at Digital
Equipment Corporation a reviewer could only say what was wrong, and
was restrained from saying how to fix it unless asked.  This maintains
the authority and agency of the coder.  But can unnecessarily delay
merge.

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 04:16:08AM +0530, Yash Agrawal wrote:
> Thank you James for the invitation. We are more than happy to join the
> organisation and help communtiy in reviewing and merging pull requests. :)
> 
> Thank you for providing such detailed information, I have been through all the
> links you have provided. I understand the role of a reviewer much better now.
> 
> >Should the above be added to sugar-docs?
> Very well written guidelines for any new member to the organisation. +1 for
> sugar-docs from me.
> 
> Now that my exams are over, I look forward to a more active participation.
> cheers!
> 
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:25 AM, James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org> wrote:
> 
> Rahul and Yash, your code contributions have been consistently good
> for the past month, so I've invited you to the GitHub sugarlabs
> organisation so that you can review and merge pull requests.
> 
> Information below may be of help to guide you in this task.
> 
> My goals for review are;
> 
> - detect trivial mistakes,
> 
> - maintain consistent and good code quality,
> 
> - reproduce test results, (especially for critical repositories),
> 
> - maintain a useful git commit history for use by git bisect, and
>   developers who read it,
> 
> - maintain other records, such as issues, tickets, and documentation,
> 
> - not waste the time of the contributor, by doing myself anything
>   trivial that otherwise the contributor might have to do.
> 
> Checklist for review of pull requests;
> 
> - [ ] does the change have consensus of the community,
>       [2]https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/CODE
> _OF_CONDUCT.md
>       (if a reviewer is in doubt, seek opinions by @mentioning people)
> 
> - [ ] does the commit message explain the summary, problem, and
>       solution, so that it can be used in future analysis,
>       [3]https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/cont
> ributing.md#making-commits
>       (if a reviewer can fix it by squash or manual rebase, do so)
> 
> - [ ] does the commit message reference the issue, [4]bugs.sugarlabs.org
>       ticket number, or downstream ticket numbers,
>       (if a reviewer can fix it by squash or manual rebase, do so)
> 
> - [ ] are the number of commits excessive for future analysis,
>       (a reviewer may squash or rebase if necessary)
> 
> - [ ] is the changed code consistent in style with the existing code,
>       [5]https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/desk
> top-activity.md#coding-standards
>       (on the other hand, expect flake8 changes to be in separate commits)
> 
> - [ ] for critical repositories, does the change work properly on our
>       latest version of Sugar on either Fedora, Debian, or Ubuntu.
> 
> Critical repositories are;
> 
> - sugar, sugar-toolkit, sugar-toolkit-gtk3, sugar-artwork,
>   sugar-datastore, gst-plugins-espeak,
> 
> - each of the Fructose activity set repositories,
>   [6]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Release/Modules#
> Fructose
> 
> Comments?  Should the above be added to sugar-docs?
>
> --
> James Cameron
> [7]http://quozl.netrek.org/
> 
> References:
> 
> [1] mailto:qu...@laptop.org
> [2] https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
> [3] 
> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/contributing.md#making-commits
> [4] http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/
> [5] 
> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/desktop-activity.md#coding-standards
> [6] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Release/Modules#Fructose
> [7] http://quozl.netrek.org/

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

2018-02-22 Thread Yash Agrawal 
Thank you James for the invitation. We are more than happy to join the
organisation and help communtiy in reviewing and merging pull requests. :)

Thank you for providing such detailed information, I have been through all
the links you have provided. I understand the role of a reviewer much
better now.

>Should the above be added to sugar-docs?
Very well written guidelines for any new member to the organisation. +1 for
sugar-docs from me.

Now that my exams are over, I look forward to a more active participation.
cheers!

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:25 AM, James Cameron  wrote:

> Rahul and Yash, your code contributions have been consistently good
> for the past month, so I've invited you to the GitHub sugarlabs
> organisation so that you can review and merge pull requests.
>
> Information below may be of help to guide you in this task.
>
>
> My goals for review are;
>
> - detect trivial mistakes,
>
> - maintain consistent and good code quality,
>
> - reproduce test results, (especially for critical repositories),
>
> - maintain a useful git commit history for use by git bisect, and
>   developers who read it,
>
> - maintain other records, such as issues, tickets, and documentation,
>
> - not waste the time of the contributor, by doing myself anything
>   trivial that otherwise the contributor might have to do.
>
>
> Checklist for review of pull requests;
>
> - [ ] does the change have consensus of the community,
>   https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/CODE
> _OF_CONDUCT.md
>   (if a reviewer is in doubt, seek opinions by @mentioning people)
>
> - [ ] does the commit message explain the summary, problem, and
>   solution, so that it can be used in future analysis,
>   https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/cont
> ributing.md#making-commits
>   (if a reviewer can fix it by squash or manual rebase, do so)
>
> - [ ] does the commit message reference the issue, bugs.sugarlabs.org
>   ticket number, or downstream ticket numbers,
>   (if a reviewer can fix it by squash or manual rebase, do so)
>
> - [ ] are the number of commits excessive for future analysis,
>   (a reviewer may squash or rebase if necessary)
>
> - [ ] is the changed code consistent in style with the existing code,
>   https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/desk
> top-activity.md#coding-standards
>   (on the other hand, expect flake8 changes to be in separate commits)
>
> - [ ] for critical repositories, does the change work properly on our
>   latest version of Sugar on either Fedora, Debian, or Ubuntu.
>
>
> Critical repositories are;
>
> - sugar, sugar-toolkit, sugar-toolkit-gtk3, sugar-artwork,
>   sugar-datastore, gst-plugins-espeak,
>
> - each of the Fructose activity set repositories,
>   https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Release/Modules#Fructose
>
>
> Comments?  Should the above be added to sugar-docs?
>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.netrek.org/
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

[Sugar-devel] New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

2018-02-22 Thread James Cameron 
Rahul and Yash, your code contributions have been consistently good
for the past month, so I've invited you to the GitHub sugarlabs
organisation so that you can review and merge pull requests.

Information below may be of help to guide you in this task.


My goals for review are;

- detect trivial mistakes,

- maintain consistent and good code quality,

- reproduce test results, (especially for critical repositories),

- maintain a useful git commit history for use by git bisect, and
  developers who read it,

- maintain other records, such as issues, tickets, and documentation,

- not waste the time of the contributor, by doing myself anything
  trivial that otherwise the contributor might have to do.


Checklist for review of pull requests;

- [ ] does the change have consensus of the community,
  https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
  (if a reviewer is in doubt, seek opinions by @mentioning people)

- [ ] does the commit message explain the summary, problem, and
  solution, so that it can be used in future analysis,
  
https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/contributing.md#making-commits
  (if a reviewer can fix it by squash or manual rebase, do so)

- [ ] does the commit message reference the issue, bugs.sugarlabs.org
  ticket number, or downstream ticket numbers,
  (if a reviewer can fix it by squash or manual rebase, do so)

- [ ] are the number of commits excessive for future analysis,
  (a reviewer may squash or rebase if necessary)

- [ ] is the changed code consistent in style with the existing code,
  
https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/blob/master/src/desktop-activity.md#coding-standards
  (on the other hand, expect flake8 changes to be in separate commits)

- [ ] for critical repositories, does the change work properly on our
  latest version of Sugar on either Fedora, Debian, or Ubuntu.


Critical repositories are;

- sugar, sugar-toolkit, sugar-toolkit-gtk3, sugar-artwork,
  sugar-datastore, gst-plugins-espeak,

- each of the Fructose activity set repositories,
  https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Release/Modules#Fructose


Comments?  Should the above be added to sugar-docs?

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel