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 <qu...@laptop.org> 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
> top-activity.md#coding-standards
> > [6] https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Release/Modul
> es#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

Reply via email to