[Sugar-devel] Code Review process changes

[Bernie Innocenti]

On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 15:17 +1000, James Cameron wrote:
> Activities too?  I've been tracking #1571 for months now, and if posting
> the patch here will work, I'm all for it.  ;-)

If you were just asking whether it's ok to post patches for activities
here, sure: we have no separate mailing list for activities (*).

If, instead, you were proposing to relax the rules for approving patches
to activities, I think we should discuss this carefully. Many activities
would probably be better off with their only maintainer reviewing and
approving each patch personally. What about the fructose activities?
What about orphaned activities?

The question of how to handle the case of an unresponsive maintainer
came up on #sugar last week: shall we define a formal procedure for
taking over projects in ASLO and Gitorious? This is how Fedora handles
it:

  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_policy#What_to_do_if_a_Maintainer_is_absent

If it seems reasonable, we could adopt the very same procedure for ASLO
and Gitorious, of course with some obvious changes: s/bugzilla/trac/,
s/FESco/SLOBs/, s/CVS/Gitorious or ASLO/.


(*) this was a deliberate choice: this way, core developers would get a
sense of what the infrastructure needs of activities really are, while
activity writers would learn about Sugar internals and eventually become
core developers.

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