[Sugar-devel] critical vs pinned repositories, was New pull request reviewers; Rahul and Yash

[Walter Bender]

One simple thing we might do is do something with the naming scheme of the
activities themselves.

turtle-art-fructose

bounce-honey

so a search for fructose would bring up all of the fructose activities.

We could also do this with "topics", but it would be a github-specific
solution.


As far as something a bit more comprehensive, and definitely github
specific, is something along the lines of
https://publiclab.github.io/community-toolbox/. The good news is that there
is a FOSS project with an active developer community behind this. But we'd
need to put resources into it.

-walter


On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:00 PM, D. Joe <sugarlabs at etrumeus.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 08:55:12AM +1100, James Cameron wrote:
>
> > Information below may be of help to guide you in this task.   [...]
>
> I find helpful this enumeration of critical repositories. This gives me a
> personal TODO list to make sure I'm following more of them than I do now.
>
> In checking against the sugarlabs organization page at
>
>   * https://github.com/sugarlabs
>
> I see something of a mismatch. I'm not sure to what extent it would be
> further helpful to refine what is pinned or not.  The set of pinned repos
> currently is
>
>     sugar-docs
>     browse-activity
>     turtleart-activity
>     sugar
>     sugar-toolkit-gtk3
>     sugar-artwork
>
> but ...
>
> > Critical repositories are;
> >
> > - sugar, sugar-toolkit, sugar-toolkit-gtk3, sugar-artwork,
> >   sugar-datastore, gst-plugins-espeak,
>
> So, from amongst this set those that aren't pinned are
>
>     sugar-datastore
>     sugar-toolkit
>     gst-plugins-espeak
>
> > - each of the Fructose activity set repositories,
> >   https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Release/
> Modules#Fructose
>
> From this much more extensive set, only two are pinned
>
>     browse-activity
>     turtleart-activity
>
> Overall, a GitHub profile is limited to six pinned repositories. In that
> light, the current set of pinned repositories is not bad as a
> representative
> draw from a set that is too large to pin in full, but it doesn't quite go
> far enough to support navigating to the full set of repositories enumerated
> by James.
>
> One possible improvement I'm wondering about is the creation of one or more
> meta repositories which then could be pinned, which in turn could hold
> READMEs pointing to the additional repositories, perhaps additionally with
> some documentation about important commonalities and differences amongst
> that subset of repositories.  This would be in addition to, and
> complementary to, and more directly discoverable than having these in
> sugar-docs.
>
> For instance, I do not find a 'fructose' repository, but there are so many
> and I think I'd need to gear up on the GitHub API to convince myself I have
> checked thoroughly.
>
> Perhaps sugarlabs/fructose or sugarlabs/fructose-meta or
> sugarlabs/fructose-collection could be created, and then pinned in place of
> both turtleart-activity or browse-activity.
>
> Naming is hard. I see "Glucose" and "Fructose" survive in the link James
> gives above, but only those two from all 6 carbohyrate-based names in
>
>   https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy
>
> seem to have been adopted. The full set of 6 terms feels overwrought and
> not
> super helpful to me.
>
> That said, it's at least *a* proposed solution to the problem brought up in
> the original version of that page:
>
>   https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Taxonomy&oldid=419
>
> To be honest, using carbohydrate names seems like it is a better fit for
> hostnames or release names (cf mention of "Dextrose" in the current
> Taxonomy
> page).
>
> As I write this and think about it, I think I'd just as soon see meta repos
> 'sugar-core' and 'sugar-base-activities' in which the README for each would
> mention that they have also been known as 'Glucose' and 'Fructose'
> respectively.
>
> So, questions:
>
>   * Is the current way of documenting what packages are a priority
> sufficient or does some change make sense?
>   * Do we continue to try to make all the names there work, or just the
> few that have stuck?
>   * Do either or both of 'sugar-core' and 'sugar-base-activities' make
> sense as meta-repos as described above?
>   * Other comments, questions, concerns, objections, advice?
>
> If it doesn't seem at first glance to be a total waste of time I can work
> on draft versions of these meta repos in my own GitHub space for further
> review.
>
> > Comments?  Should the above be added to sugar-docs?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
<http://www.sugarlabs.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20180227/47379747/attachment-0001.html>