I have no surprises in this list, small bits of feedback: Is it worth grouping to allow the document to be scanned quickly? - compatibility: java version and library usage, backwards compatibility, standards conformance - regression: performance / leaks / thread safety - integration: fit with existing architecture, proper module usage - code health: ip checks, dangerous code
-- Jody Garnett On 5 January 2016 at 00:21, Andrea Aime <andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: > Hi folks, > I'm writing to ask if anyone else want to grab the baton and complete this > one? > I believe I have done my fair share of effort, but more work is needed to > update > the contribution guide, find a good place to both documents (or single > shared document) and so on. > > Any takers? > > Cheers > Andrea > > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Andrea Aime <andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it > > wrote: > >> Hi, >> as you can see, pull requests are going "well", we have quite a bit of >> them coming >> in all the time, and compared to other projects, relatively small queues >> and wait times. >> Yet, this continuous flow, coupled with the chronic lack of people >> dedicating >> time to review them, makes me believe we need to do something to >> streamline >> this further. >> >> The first choice in a community project would be to throw more "meat" at >> the problem, >> having more reviewers. This has been brought up before, and some >> unsolicited help >> (people that we don't need to call up by name to get some opinion) >> showed up, but imho we are not nearly enough yet. >> >> I am wondering, would it help if we added in the wiki a review guide? >> Would that >> make more people show up to do reviews? If not that, what will? >> >> Another issue is that some come out of the blue and propose >> deep changes, or large refactors, making them very hard to review, as in, >> demanding >> the reviewer to literally spend several hours of their spare time on a >> single pull request >> just to handle aestetics/class structure changes, connect the dots and >> figure >> out if the change is actually an improvement or not. >> Shall we just add to the list of pull request criterias "keep changes to >> a minimum, be >> mindful of those reviewing them"? Other ideas? >> >> Moving on, there is a number of people making pull request with changes >> that are >> so focused on their specific issue that it's hard if not impossible to >> merge the changes, >> because they don't see the big picture and are causing regressions in >> other use >> cases. >> Again, maybe we should just write in docs in a more evident way to >> discuss before >> proposing changes, in order to avoid the above? Or ask people to consider >> all ways the code they are using can be leveraged, and not just their >> particular >> use case? What else? >> >> Finally, another source of pain is that the core developer doing the >> review is held responsible >> for the changes being merged, while the person proposing the pull request >> should be instead. >> Now, we cannot have these people contributing pull requests be >> responsible forever, >> but could we setup some policy that if anything goes wrong with the pull >> request, they are supposed >> to be around and help fixing the mess, for some amount of time (like, >> don't know, >> 2 to 6 months?). If they are not, the commits just get reverted instead >> (assuming >> it's possible, sometimes it will not be). >> Also, it would be great if we could ask them to sit on the user list to >> answer of their >> changes to the user base, for the same amount of time (right now it's >> pretty much >> the core dev that merged the pull doing that, which is also unfair). >> This would be mostly for new features/large changes, not for bug fixes, >> although >> I would really love to have the responsible be grilled by the angry users >> when >> a so called bug fix causes some important regression. >> >> That's what I have, any other idea is course more than welcomed :-) >> >> Cheers >> Andrea >> >> >> >> -- >> == >> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit >> http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. >> == >> >> *Geosolutions' Winter Holidays from 24/12 to 6/1* >> >> Ing. Andrea Aime >> @geowolf >> Technical Lead >> >> GeoSolutions S.A.S. >> Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 >> 55054 Massarosa (LU) >> Italy >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >> mob: +39 339 8844549 >> >> http://www.geo-solutions.it >> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >> >> *AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003* >> >> Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o >> nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il >> loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, >> per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo >> messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di >> darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio >> stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, >> divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od >> utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai >> principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003. >> >> >> >> The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely >> for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential >> or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act >> (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection >> Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, >> copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is >> strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named >> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact >> immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the >> information in this message that has been received in error. The sender >> does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or >> completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes >> made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of >> e-mail transmission, viruses, etc. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > -- > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit > http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. > == > > *Geosolutions' Winter Holidays from 24/12 to 6/1* > > Ing. Andrea Aime > @geowolf > Technical Lead > > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > Italy > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 339 8844549 > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > *AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003* > > Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o > nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il > loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, > per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo > messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di > darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio > stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, > divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od > utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai > principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003. > > > > The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for > the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or > proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act > (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection > Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, > copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is > strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact > immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the > information in this message that has been received in error. The sender > does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or > completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes > made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of > e-mail transmission, viruses, etc. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
