On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:07:20PM +0100, Gary Martin wrote: > On Monday, October 25, 2010, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > > (composite reply to several postings in thread) > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 03:16:49PM +0100, Gary Martin wrote: > >> On 20 Oct 2010, at 21:56, James Cameron wrote: > >> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:56:41PM +0100, Gary Martin wrote: > >> > > ? http://git.sugarlabs.org/projects/paint/repos/mainline > >> > > > >> > > I noticed that the activity.info file is still for version 27. As > >> > > Paint-28 has been released I'd expect to mainline to at least be > >> > > up to date with those commits. Maybe the rest of the source is > >> > > current, and it's just the activity.info file change that was not > >> > > pushed? > >> > > >> > While it would be nice if every release of every activity has a > >> > matching tag and sources in the respective repository, we've had > >> > situations where that has not been desirable, such as when a version > >> > of Record was released for a deployment via activities.sugarlabs.org > >> > but the changes were not accepted into mainline because consensus > >> > had not been reached. > >> > >> In such cases git.sugarlabs.org provides very easy cloning of any rep > >> where deployments can have full control and create, say, a custom > >> Record-Peru. > > > > It might not have been easy enough, because it wasn't chosen as the > > solution to the issue at the time. > > > >> > A release of an activity is not done using the master repository, it > >> > is done using a local clone of the repository. ?Therefore during > >> > testing and diagnosis I've always presumed that the source code > >> > shipped in the .xo file might be different to the tagged source in > >> > the master repository. > >> > >> Hmm, I'd have to disagree. This seems like a terrible workflow for a > >> community. [...] > > > > How would you make activities be released from a master repository? ?You > > would automate the release mechanism somehow? ?You would add one more > > person to the release sequence? ?Or you would refuse to list activities > > on activities.sugarlabs.org unless they match a master repository? > > No, I was just trying to suggest that it is a very good habit to keep > master in sync with the activity bundle releases.
Yes, good habit, but it doesn't always happen, and I would not expect it to happen for 100% of releases. There have been exceptions, and so there will be more exceptions. > FWIW, it's actually much easier for a maintainer (my opinion) to > review and merge work when it's been made in a clone in gitiorus, I disagree. I find it much easier to review patches than to work with a clone. The patches have already arrived in mail. The clone is on the other end of a network link. We should not discriminate against remote contributors, especially given the focus of the project on learners from remote areas. > think it's also easier for who ever is making the patches as well > given all the git fu has seems to be needed to email patches... Really, it's not that hard. How have we failed to explain it? Edit source, commit, format-patch and add to mail, or try git send-email if you have a working e-mail configuration. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel