[Sugar-devel] [Dextrose] Pending patchs for Paint

[James Cameron]

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:07:20PM +0100, Gary Martin wrote:
> On Monday, October 25, 2010, James Cameron <quozl at 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/