[SoaS] [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.88 packages

Bernie Innocenti bernie at codewiz.org
Thu May 13 14:15:00 EDT 2010

El Thu, 13-05-2010 a las 19:30 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso escribió:

> Are your patches in this queue?
> http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&order=priority&col=id&col=summary&col=component&col=milestone&col=status&col=type&col=priority&milestone=!0.90&keywords=~r%3F
> If not, please read the code review process in the wiki and make sure
> you follow it.

Does this imply that we're giving up on the new email-based review
process? Some maintainers have already adopted it and there seemed to be
general consensus on it, except maybe for some procedural details.

> Also, today I tried to review a patch of you in trac that had
> bitrotten because you hadn't updated it after review on the ml. Please
> make sure this doesn't happen by updating the attached patches or by
> pasting a link to the thread in archives.

What's the ticket number?

> There's quite a bit of things that non-maintainers can do to speed up
> this process, but unfortunately my last call for help was ignored. If
> people really care about this, please do reviews so that when the
> maintainer gets to it it can just make a quick read and set the flag
> to r+. It would also helped if submitters read the code guidelines in
> the first place, of course.

Almost all the patches I've seen posted to the list where promptly
reviewed by one or multiple people.

Please, don't ask contributors to also file a bug in Trac, attach the
patch and set the "r+" keyword before you can merge otherwise good

> Note that I'm still waiting for your replies to the comments on your
> post "[PATCH 1/2] This fixes part of
> http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/1876". (And again, make sure that
> trac has a reference to the outcome of that review).

I'll give it a look today.

> > Ideally, some of the existing contributors would step up and become
> > maintainers of specific modules or releases. I'm available to maintain
> > the 0.88 branch unless someone else wants to and I offered to become a
> > review peer for all the sugar-* modules.
> Thank you, that's a very generous offer. Why don't you start by
> pre-reviewing the patches in the queue so current maintainers see you
> have the required experience? That way you win twice: speed up the
> queue and become a maintainer yourself.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that I'm *already* pre-reviewing plenty of
patches. Only, I do it on sugar-devel@, which is what we had agreed to
do a few weeks ago after discussing it extensively on IRC with you.

iirc, you were opposed only to let any contributors approve patches for
Sugar modules with missing or unresponsive maintainers.

What shall we do to resolve the current uncertainty quickly? Shall we
vote the new review process with Selectricity?

> > BTW: I did some testing yesterday with F11-XO1-0.88 and results are very
> > encouraging. I'm seeing some issues related to font-size and window
> > borders. We need to figure out why these things work well in
> > sugar-emulator in 1200x900 and not on the XO-1. I tried upgrading
> > Metacity, but it did not seem to help.
> Can you get some screenshots? (But please create a new thread)

Ok, I'll do it when I announce the build. Maybe it will happen by this

   // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
 \X/  Sugar Labs       - http://sugarlabs.org/

More information about the SoaS mailing list