On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 100%. > But that need could be reconciled with my idea in either of two ways: > 1. There is discussion taking place, just in the Google Docs file as > opposed to the maling list. Anyone who wants can participate. The point is > that I suspect much of the reason everyone wants better naming but no one is > doing anything, is because there's a lot of overhead besides the actual act > of discussion. I think we need an approach that lets people 'just discuss' > the names in context, without any extra work like copy pasting into > spreadsheets etc. > So, you're trying to drive disucssion to some place hidden from the rest of the list (and by list I mean, users and creators of Lift). > 2. If that's not satisfactory, then we can summarize the discussion on the > list or just run the "conclusion" by everyone on the list. This way the > discussion itself will remain lighweight and overhead-less, but it will > still have to go through public scrutiny on the list before any ticket is > filed. > To present the users and creators of Lift with, essentially, a fait accompli? Leave me out of that one. > Of course if you still object we're all ears! > Thanks. > > > ------------------------------------- > David Pollak<feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Does anyone object to this approach? > > Any source file that's being reviewed (hopefully one or very few at a > time) > > should be uploaded to Google Docs as a text document. Discussion can > consist > > of the built in google chat functionality but mainly by inserting a ((( > ... > > ))) section in scaladoc comments and writing your name and thoughts > there. > > The advantage to this "poor man's code review" is that there's no > overhead > > for someone to join the effort - no arranging things in a spreadsheet or > > linking threads. I suspect that may have been an impediment until now. > > Of course nothing will be merged back from there; it's just a context for > > discussion that may lead to tickets. > > > > In general, folks shouldn't open tickets without a discussion on this list > and at least a nod from me, Marius, Derek or Tim. There are some > exceptions > to this general rule. For example, if there's an actual defect (e.g., NPE > de-serializing JSON data structures and you include a reproduceable case) > or > if you are me, Marius, Derek or Tim and you're queuing up work for > yourself. > > Why? (1) the current ticketing system does not allow for good discussion > of > things and the whole community is not involved (2) one person's "defect" is > another person's feature so having a discussion to keep things oriented > towards where Lift is going is a lot better on list and (3) some tickets > like "write more documentation" serve no purpose because there's no person > attached to the work and those kinds of tickets just clutter the ticketing > system which doesn't have good filtering or prioritization tools as it is. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Erkki Lindpere<vill...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I just noticed that GitHub also lets you comment on *commits*, but not > > files :( > > > > But Google Docs or whatever you end up deciding on works for me. > > > > On Dec 29, 11:42 pm, Ross Mellgren <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We have a code review board (reviewboard.liftweb.net), but it's pretty > > > geared towards changes. I don't know if it can be configured or used > > > or what-have-you for reviewing the current state of code. > > > > > > -Ross > > > > > > On Dec 29, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Erkki Lindpere wrote: > > > > > > > Another option would be to use a specialized code review tool, though > > > > someone would have to host it. There's one thing that may not fit > > > > about these, though: usually they are for reviewing *changes* and not > > > > existing code. I don't know what the good ones are, but some > otherwise > > > > commercial products are free for Open Source projects (all of these > > > > list Git support as well): > > > > > > > SmartBear CodeCollaborator / CodeReviewer > > > >http://smartbear.com/codecollab.php > > > >http://smartbear.com/codecollab-buy.php<-- about open source > > > > licensing > > > > > > > Atlassian Crucible > > > >http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/ > > > > > > http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible/licensing-faq.jsp#open-source > > > > <-- about open source licensing > > > > > > > I know there are some open source ones as well, personally I've only > > > > used Crucible once and an open source tool a long time ago (don't > > > > remember which one). > > > > > > > Or how about writing a simple code review app in lift as an example > > > > project :) > > > > > > > Erkki L > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 9:31 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Neat, thanks! > > > >> Where to post it is a very, very good question. I would suggest not > > > >> to invest much in a particular medium before you help us > > > >> crystallize a good answer! > > > >> (Attention all interested in the naming progess: I think we made > > > >> good progress in terms of guidelines, and I think the next step is > > > >> to discuss this question!) > > > >> Originally the idea was to keep an organized Google Docs > > > >> spreadsheet. I am not sure how sustainable the approach is though, > > > >> because the amount of overhead may weigh it down too much. I am > > > >> curious if that is part of why not much progress has been made. > > > >> Jim, if you're reading this (I hope you are!) can you comment? > > > >> The problem with just filing tickets is that everyone has different > > > >> ideas, so discussion may be necessary to arrive at a consensus. At > > > >> least posting it here first means if someone objects he will have a > > > >> chance to voice his objection. > > > >> One idea is one discusson thread, in the main Lift list, per Lift > > > >> class. If everyone focuses on one or a few classes at a time it > > > >> won't clog the list too much. > > > >> Another idea of mine is to put the lift source file on Google Docs > > > >> as a text document, and people can contribute to the discussion by > > > >> writing inside the scaladoc comments. Nothing will get merged > > > >> directly back to git; it's just a very lightweight way of > > > >> discussing. E.g.: > > > >> /** > > > >> Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxx Xxx > > > >> Erkki: why is xxx xx xxxxxxx > > > >> nafg: well, xxx and xxx > > > >> erkki: okay, but ... > > > >> */ > > > >> def someFoo ... > > > > > > >> What do you think? Very out of the box but it means very little > > > >> copy-pasting work: the only overhead is uploading a source file; > > > >> the rest is pure discussion in an inherently organized context. > > > >> The disadvantage compared to threads on the list is that it won't > > > >> get as much automatic public scrutiny, but whoever wants can have > > > >> Google Docs email them any edits. > > > >> Thoughts, everyone? > > > >> Thanks. > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------- > > > > > > >> Erkki Lindpere<vill...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> Hmm... actually seems like it will be a long document, I've already > > > >> got several suggestions with 10 minutes of looking. Maybe I'll do a > > > >> complete code review for the lift-webkit module if I have time / > feel > > > >> like it. Where should I post it? There doesn't seem to be a separate > > > >> developers list. > > > > > > >> Erkki L > > > > > > >> On Dec 29, 7:58 pm, Erkki Lindpere <vill...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>> Ok, I'll collect some specific issues I have with the API over a > bit > > > >>> longer period of usage and post them as an issue in GitHub? Or > here? > > > > > > >>> Erkki L > > > > > > >>> On Dec 28, 4:40 am, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> * there are several classes that have lots of methods in them > that > > > >>>>> don't all belong together. For example: S, LiftRules, I'm sure > > > >>>>> there's > > > >>>>> more. Some packages have too many classes as well. I think there > > > >>>>> should be a cleaner separation of concerns. > > > > > > >>>> Again, I think there is a willingness to do something about this > > > >>>> but we need > > > >>>> your feedback. How would you categorize the concerns that S and > > > >>>> LiftRules > > > >>>> address? How would you like to see that categorization reflected > > > >>>> in the API? > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > >> Groups "Lift" group. > > > >> To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > >> . > > > >> For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en > > > >> . > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups "Lift" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en > > > > . > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Lift" group. > > To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Lift" group. > > To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > -- > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp > Surf the harmonics > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lift" group. > To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lift" group. > To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > > -- James A Barrows -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
