[Sugar-devel] [PATCH] fix trivial typo in extension loading exception
bernie at codewiz.org
Thu Jun 3 21:13:02 EDT 2010
El Thu, 03-06-2010 a las 11:57 +1000, James Cameron escribió:
> > Unfortunately, the old process is still in place. A new process will
> > enter into effect when the wiki is changed.
> I think you should test a proposed new process and not wait for it to
> enter into effect. If you don't have time to test the process, then it
> means the new process cannot be adopted, because it is untested.
It's also my fault: I promised that I'd write down a final draft of the
review process that we had agreed upon a couple of weeks ago. Hopefully
I'll have some time to work on it next week, but feel free to beat me on
This email summarizes the current status:
--------- Mensaje reenviado --------
De: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net>
Para: Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org>
Cc: Sugar Devel <sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org>, Fedora OLPC List
<fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com>, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>,
SoaS <soas at lists.sugarlabs.org>, Sebastian Dziallas <sdz at sugarlabs.org>
Asunto: changes to the review process (was Re: [Sugar-devel] Sugar 0.88
Fecha: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:18:10 +0200
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 00:02, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org>
> El Fri, 14-05-2010 a las 08:59 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso escribió:
>> I'm just asking for someone to propose a set of concrete and coherent
>> changes to the current process, is it really asking too much?
>> I'm sorry but I cannot go through the old threads, ask individuals for
>> clarifications, then draft that new process myself.
> Do you want the proposal posted to the wiki?
> We could basically take Sasha's original plan and copy it to the wiki. I
> think it was quite well thought:
> I propose the following amendments:
> 1) Scrap the paragraph saying that any sugar developer can approve
> changes, because it turned out to be a controversial point. The "who"
> and the "where" of reviews are orthogonal topics that can be discussed
> 2) Also scrap the part where Sascha proposes ways to track patches in
> the list, since we can now use Patchwork for this.
> 3) Add all the clarifications in my follow-up to Sascha's proposal:
> 4) The existing conventions still apply for referencing tickets in the
> commit logs
> 5) When a corresponding ticket exists, the committer should add a link
> to the patch discussion in Patchwork before committing the patch.
> Does this sound good enough for an initial iteration? If so, I could
> take care of transcribing it into the wiki. Then, we can further refine
> the process as we go.
I think this is an excellent step forward, I really appreciate you
having taken the time to do this.
I still need to explore patchwork further and I'm a bit concerned
about requiring that reviewers amend the commit message but I'm
willing to give it a test drive and see how it works in real.
I'm looking forward for the new text proposal.
// Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
\X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/
More information about the Sugar-devel