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

[James Cameron]

My list of critical repositories was on a thread focused on Sugar
desktop and Python activity code review.  It is less relevant for
Sugar Labs as a whole.

The mismatch at heart is GitHub's scalability of features for large
open source projects with many repositories.  We have 292 at the
moment.  Most are orphaned or abandoned.  Using search is critical.

Once a developer is familiar with our repository layout, the problem
disappears for them.  Does our ramp-up documentation explain well
enough?  I don't think I've heard many "where is X?" questions.

We could waste a lot of time moving repositories around to meet
consistent naming standards; I'd like to see reasoned benefit before
doing that.

I recently changed the pinned repositories.  I'd have pinned Sugarizer
and Music Blocks, but they are both being developed outside Sugar Labs
on GitHub personal accounts.  That's why I've got Browse and Turtle
Art pinned.

We could also waste a lot of time on dashboards or other
meta-development.  If we have a volunteer to do that, great, but I'm
not putting my hand up.

Repositories containing submodules for a collection of activities
might be interesting, but it brings a new problem; maintenance of the
repository in the face of ongoing change in the submodules.  We've had
to back away from submodules in Browse because of repeating bugs where
a downstream used a GitHub release tag instead of our tarball.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/