On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 November 2013 02:18, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > 1 Bug fixes. In 0.100 we added several nice features but I think the >> >> > quality >> >> > of the core components is still not at a level we can be proud of. >> >> > Let's >> >> > try >> >> > to fix that for 0.102. >> >> >> >> Be nice to get a discussion going about where you see the problems. >> > >> > >> > Do you mean the concrete quality issues I'm seeing or the problems with >> > the >> > development process keeping quality low? >> > >> >> Both. > > > Ok. I will try to start a discussion. I need to put more thought into this > myself first... > >> I remember someone wasn't happy about the features proposal process. Maybe >> it was you but I'm not sure... Anyway that's something we can discuss now. >> I >> must admit I'm not even very familiar with feature pages requirements. As >> far as I'm concerned just explaining what you are planning to land on the >> mailing list would be enough. > >> Not sure there is too much more overhead for writing a wiki page vs >> writing an email. I don't recall hearing anything concrete about the >> feature proposal process recently. It has be refactored periodically, >> usually under the guidance of the release manager :) > > > Yeah it wasn't much about wiki vs mailing list but I guessed there was > formal requirements for what a feature proposal should look like etc. And I > hate formalities :) I never wrote a feature proposal myself... I thought I > heard someone complain in irc, but if people are happy I'm happy too!
Where things get contentious tends to be in the user-facing bits. We've had to be diligent about keeping our sights on what is important to the learner. Not always fashionable. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel