[Sugar-devel] Activity Central's Sugar related priorities.

[James Cameron]

Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > Daniel wrote:
> > > Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > > > Samuel Wrote:
> > > > In general one of my frustrations lately is that now that we no
> > > > longer publicly review patches on this mailing list, everyone
> > > > seems to be developing their own version of Sugar.
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate on this one? I haven't noticed this kind of
> > > change (and we have not been reviewing most patches on the mailing
> > > list since a long long time, well before the github switch).
> >
> > I think the change was the movement to github.  If we can add
> > sugar-devel mailing list to the github mail destinations, that can
> > be solved.
>
> I was mostly concerned about Samuel feeling that everyone is
> developing they're own version of Sugar. I don't see that or at
> least I don't see differences with the past.

I agree with Samuel; that with the loss of public review of patches
participation in development has been confined to those who take the
trouble to visit a web site.

(The reviews by mail were also stimulating other discussion on list).

So on the theory that developers are developing with less review (even
though it might be unseen greater review), this leads to the
conclusion that Sugar is being developed by these developers "on their
own".

And, actually, I'm fine with that.  A smaller group can achieve more
if they are able to use these new tools effectively.

I have not been effective since that change, but you would have seen
that a review counter or tracking?  Has there been a measure of review
rate?

> We probably can have sugar-devel as email destination... Though I'm
> not sure why people wouldn't just watch the modules they are
> interested in? It seems more flexible. Anyway not opposed to send
> all modules to the whole mailing list if there is consensus on
> that.

I don't see how "watching the modules they are interested in" is "more
flexible", nor whether greater flexibility increases the
communication.

Please don't configure github to send links to the patches; they have
to be the patches themselves.  They should also have a from address
that matches the originator.

What used to happen was easy.  Get a mail with the patch.  Scroll it
down while reviewing it.  When the cognitive dissonance hits a
threshold, hit the reply button and begin a comment.  Press send.

Mail is a store and forward architecture.  I can use mail without
having to wait for an internet connection.  Github is not so lucky:

$ ping -n github.com
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 288.440/606.297/1049.233/262.776 ms, pipe 2

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/