Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-31 Thread Daniel Narvaez 
I couldn't agree more that code review is a good practice.

(I hope it was absolutely clear that I didn't expect you to deny merge
requests, it was a theoretical example)

On Sunday, 29 December 2013, Luiz Irber wrote:

> Hello, sorry for causing all this problem =]
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> On 24 December 2013 23:36, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> No. I only aswer this email (see below).
>>> The mantainer is not "Unresponsive", only takes more of 1 month to
>>> asnwer, that what is?
>>> "slow modem connection user"? :-)
>>>
>>
>> Well, to start with give him more of a chance :) He didn't answer to one
>> email, he might have missed it, forgot about it or even thought you didn't
>> need an answer to go ahead and post the merge request.
>>
>
> About that, maybe I wasn't clear enough in my previous answer, but what I
> wanted to say was exactly what Daniel said: just go ahead and make a merge
> request. And yes, I missed this email thread, only today a friend pointed
> that something was happening.
>
>
>> If a maintainer is very slow but it's clear he wants to review code
>> before it's pushed, I don't think we should do so without his permission.
>> It's his project, he is even free to reject perfectly good code without
>> looking at it, if he wants.
>>
>
> I'm not planning to deny merge requests, but I think code review is a good
> practice. OK, four years ago we didnt't do it, but nowadays it is important
> =]
>
> Luiz
>


-- 
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-29 Thread Luiz Irber 
Hello, sorry for causing all this problem =]

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:

> On 24 December 2013 23:36, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn 
> wrote:
>
>> No. I only aswer this email (see below).
>> The mantainer is not "Unresponsive", only takes more of 1 month to
>> asnwer, that what is?
>> "slow modem connection user"? :-)
>>
>
> Well, to start with give him more of a chance :) He didn't answer to one
> email, he might have missed it, forgot about it or even thought you didn't
> need an answer to go ahead and post the merge request.
>

About that, maybe I wasn't clear enough in my previous answer, but what I
wanted to say was exactly what Daniel said: just go ahead and make a merge
request. And yes, I missed this email thread, only today a friend pointed
that something was happening.


> If a maintainer is very slow but it's clear he wants to review code before
> it's pushed, I don't think we should do so without his permission. It's his
> project, he is even free to reject perfectly good code without looking at
> it, if he wants.
>

I'm not planning to deny merge requests, but I think code review is a good
practice. OK, four years ago we didnt't do it, but nowadays it is important
=]

Luiz
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-25 Thread Bernie Innocenti 
+1 from me as well.

For the record: I drafted the current policy a couple of years ago in
the attempt to give activity developers a clearly documented process
that they can just follow without getting stuck into a long policy
discussion.

As Daniel noted, the current process seems a bit too laborious and I
would support shortening it in the future. To me, "the Activity Team
coordinator decides on a case-by-case basis" would work too. The
important point is documenting the process in advance so everyone knows
how to handle future cases.


On 12/24/2013 04:22 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> +1
> 
> On Tuesday, 24 December 2013, Walter Bender wrote:
> 
> It is current and we should be following it, IMHO.
> 
> -walter
> 
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Narvaez  > wrote:
> > (Assuming the policy is not obsolete or something, I think we
> should move it
> > to developer.sugarlabs.org ).
> >
> >
> > On 24 December 2013 21:51, Daniel Narvaez  > wrote:
> >>
> >> By the way, we seem to have a non responsive maintainer policy
> already.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Policy_for_nonresponsive_maintainers
> >>
> >> Any reason we are not following it?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24 December 2013 21:49, Daniel Narvaez  > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 24 December 2013 15:10, Aleksey Lim  > wrote:
> 
>  On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>  > IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on
> ASLO. git is
>  > set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint
> ownership
>  > on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be
> available
>  > even after Alan uploads new ones.)
> 
>  I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with
> git.sl.o
>  in this case (passing ownership).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ASLO is more similar to a distribution than to gitorious
> repositories and
> >>> distributions usually have non-responsive maintainer policies
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/beyond-pkging.html#mia-qa
> >>>
> 
>  At the end, the important thing is that
>  both versions should be available for users (the original
> version, and
>  the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly
> possible to
>  have only one download entity [on ASLO].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If we have to choose, I think it's more important to make an
> improved
> >>> activity available then old versions provided by the original
> maintainer.
> >>>
> 
>  In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
>  to handle this kind of issues in the future.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  We can reevaluate when SN takes over, but given the current
> >>> infrastructure I think giving Alan joint ownership is the most
> pragmatic
> >>> approach.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Narvaez
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Narvaez
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Narvaez
> 


-- 
 _ // Bernie Innocenti
 \X/  http://codewiz.org
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Daniel Narvaez 
On 24 December 2013 23:36, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn wrote:

> No. I only aswer this email (see below).
> The mantainer is not "Unresponsive", only takes more of 1 month to asnwer,
> that what is?
> "slow modem connection user"? :-)
>

Well, to start with give him more of a chance :) He didn't answer to one
email, he might have missed it, forgot about it or even thought you didn't
need an answer to go ahead and post the merge request.

*Disclaimer*. Below I'm talking hypotetically, not referring to this
specific case.

If a maintainer is very slow but it's clear he wants to review code before
it's pushed, I don't think we should do so without his permission. It's his
project, he is even free to reject perfectly good code without looking at
it, if he wants.

"The purpose for this policy is to provide a mechanism within Sugar Labs to
handle situations when a package maintainer becomes unavailable to continue
maintainership". That's the only case where taking over without permission
is acceptable really (and perhaps only on ALSO, but that's not what the
current policy says).

If the maintainer is doing a bad job, by either refusing good code or
simply taking ages to do reviews, I think the only way to handle it is
convince him to cooperate or to fork.

Coming back to the specific case, I bet that if you pester the maintainer
enough you will get feedback on your patches :)
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn 
>You didn't paste your answer or am I not finding it? Did you send a pull 
>request >as suggested? Having seen this email, I wouldn't say the maintainer 
>is unresponsive.

No. I only aswer this email (see below). The mantainer is not "Unresponsive", 
only takes more of 1 month to asnwer, that what is?"slow modem connection 
user"? :-)
My last mail (pending of asnwer):

From: alan...@hotmail.com
To: luiz.ir...@gmail.com; gabrielgera...@gmail.com; alexan...@harano.net.br; 
fabio...@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Gambiarra game
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 07:24:28 -0300

> From: luiz.ir...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:12:27 -0200
> Subject: Re: Gambiarra game
> To: alan...@hotmail.com; gabrielgera...@gmail.com; alexan...@harano.net.br; 
> fabio...@gmail.com
> CC: luiz.ir...@gmail.com
> 
> Hello Alan,
> 
> I'm CCing the other authors.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn
>  wrote:
> > -add translations for other languages
> 
> That could be a problem. Because we made the game during a Game Jam,
> strings are hardcoded inside images. Probably we need to refactor code
> and use PyGame to render text.
Yes. My idea is use PyGame font render for that.
> 
> > -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> 
> > -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames (olpcgames was
> > no suported).
> 
> I think we used OLPCGames pretty lightly, so this should be easy.
Yes.
> 
> > For that, I want to continue your project and I want, if it's possible,
> > have access to your original GIT:
> >
> > https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
> 
> I don't see any problems with that, but I would like to ask something:
> do any new development on branches, and then create a merge request.
> Gitorious UI isn't very good, but I think a merge request works like a
> Pull Request in GitHub, and so it is easy to review and comment
> changes.
> 
> What do you think?
Yes. The "merge" and "pull" request do the same.You want continue with the 
game?In that case, maybe a "merge request" it's better thatn give me access.
Regards!
Alan

> Thanks for the interest!
> Luiz
> 
> > Regards!
> >
> > Alan
> >
  ___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Daniel Narvaez 
On 24 December 2013 23:08, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn wrote

> Hi,
>
> I thought that request access to a repository was simpler task.
>

In general, we have a policy for it, I think until there is consensus to
change it we should just follow it

http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Policy_for_nonresponsive_maintainers

It's not dead simple but not horribly complicated either. It is a tricky
issue and we should make sure we don't step on the maintainer's feet.

Other thing. I only have this answer of original mantainer and I answer
> that mail without
> answer on November 19 of 2013. I consider it appropriate to add to the
> discussion (add CC)
>

You didn't paste your answer or am I not finding it? Did you send a pull
request as suggested? Having seen this email, I wouldn't say the maintainer
is unresponsive.
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn 
Hi,
I thought that request access to a repository was simpler task.Exists a lot of 
activities that the original autor, for time or any reason, gives the accessto 
other mantainer with the hope to help.
I see a lot of activities, originally writes for other people, mantained now 
for AC people.How they can have access to the repos??
I'm agree to the point 3: "but, ASLO does not provide decent ways to sort out 
its content.."For me, not have sense create a fork for a unmantained activity 
(in general, for no one).If it's the same activity with only a few changes, 
it's better have them in the original repo.If not, you will have thousands of 
"same" activity: gambiarra, 
gambiarra-alan-patchs-for-sugar-0.96+,gambiarra-new-style-toolbars, etc.
---Other
 thing. I only have this answer of original mantainer and I answer that mail 
withoutanswer on November 19 of 2013. I consider it appropriate to add to the 
discussion (add CC)

> From: luiz.ir...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:12:27 -0200
> Subject: Re: Gambiarra game
> To: alan...@hotmail.com; gabrielgera...@gmail.com; alexan...@harano.net.br; 
> fabio...@gmail.com
> CC: luiz.ir...@gmail.com
> 
> Hello Alan,
> 
> I'm CCing the other authors.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn
>  wrote:
> > -add translations for other languages
> 
> That could be a problem. Because we made the game during a Game Jam,
> strings are hardcoded inside images. Probably we need to refactor code
> and use PyGame to render text.
> 
> > -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> 
> > -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames (olpcgames was
> > no suported).
> 
> I think we used OLPCGames pretty lightly, so this should be easy.
> 
> > For that, I want to continue your project and I want, if it's possible,
> > have access to your original GIT:
> >
> > https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
> 
> I don't see any problems with that, but I would like to ask something:
> do any new development on branches, and then create a merge request.
> Gitorious UI isn't very good, but I think a merge request works like a
> Pull Request in GitHub, and so it is easy to review and comment
> changes.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks for the interest!
> Luiz
> 
> > Regards!
> >
> > Alan
> >


> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 21:24:11 +
> From: alsr...@sugarlabs.org
> To: gonz...@laptop.org
> CC: alan...@hotmail.com; sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org; ber...@codewiz.org; 
> walter.ben...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game
> 
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:22:14PM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > One problem with this idea of multiple developers cloning,
> > having multiple versions and so,
> > is than we transfer to the user the complexity of deal with what activity
> > use.
> 
> In my ming, you are messing here several points:
> 
> (1) publish sources
> (2) publish "binaries", ie, applications ready to run
> (3) QAed and especially sorted out content which is the most useful
> for particular auditory
> 
> Back to the subject activity, here, just an example:
> 
> (1) I don't see any problems to have bunch on source repositories
> (2) I don't see any problems that every of these source repositories
> will be available in running form from the App Store
> (3) I don't see how (1) and (2) might prevent providing most appropriate
> content for different kinds of users
> 
> The current status within the SL is that:
> 
> (1) git.sl.o provides all needs, pretty enough for people who know
> how to use Git
> (2) technically, all git.sl.o repos might be uploaded to the ASLO
> for multiple entities, eg, Gambiarra, Gambiarra-ng, 
> It-Is-Not-Gambiarra-You-Knew-Before
> (3) but, ASLO does not provide decent ways to sort out its content to
> meet the (3), especially for different kinds of
> users/usage-scenarios (the Internet is not the same as one particular 
> country/reagion
> and not the same as particular school/class).
> 
> Nevertheless, I don't think that current buggy status is an excuse for
> messing all three points, e.g., trying to keep one entity with the name
> "Gambiarra" on git.sl.o and App Store (ASLO). The better way for me is
> keeping crystal-clear picture in mind for one part of people and trying
> to fix it for the others.
> 
> -- 
> Aleksey
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
  ___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Daniel Narvaez 
On Tuesday, 24 December 2013, Aleksey Lim wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:22:14PM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > One problem with this idea of multiple developers cloning,
> > having multiple versions and so,
> > is than we transfer to the user the complexity of deal with what activity
> > use.
>
> In my ming, you are messing here several points:
>
> (1) publish sources
> (2) publish "binaries", ie, applications ready to run
> (3) QAed and especially sorted out content which is the most useful
> for particular auditory
>
> Back to the subject activity, here, just an example:
>
> (1) I don't see any problems to have bunch on source repositories
> (2) I don't see any problems that every of these source repositories
> will be available in running form from the App Store
> (3) I don't see how (1) and (2) might prevent providing most appropriate
> content for different kinds of users


How would current users of Gambiarra find out about the improved version?
With the current infrastructure if you rename the activity it seems like
they would be unlikely to...


> The current status within the SL is that:
>
> (1) git.sl.o provides all needs, pretty enough for people who know
> how to use Git
> (2) technically, all git.sl.o repos might be uploaded to the ASLO
> for multiple entities, eg, Gambiarra, Gambiarra-ng,
> It-Is-Not-Gambiarra-You-Knew-Before
> (3) but, ASLO does not provide decent ways to sort out its content to
> meet the (3), especially for different kinds of
> users/usage-scenarios (the Internet is not the same as one particular
> country/reagion
> and not the same as particular school/class).
>
> Nevertheless, I don't think that current buggy status is an excuse for
> messing all three points, e.g., trying to keep one entity with the name
> "Gambiarra" on git.sl.o and App Store (ASLO). The better way for me is
> keeping crystal-clear picture in mind for one part of people and trying
> to fix it for the others.


I'm not sure to understand how ALSO ability to provide different activities
for different audiences is related to the specific issue with Gambiarra. I
mean, it seems like we are talking of changes that every audience would
like to get? If this was a fork to bring the activity in a different
direction then the thing would be completely different.

Thanks.


-- 
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Aleksey Lim 
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:22:14PM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> One problem with this idea of multiple developers cloning,
> having multiple versions and so,
> is than we transfer to the user the complexity of deal with what activity
> use.

In my ming, you are messing here several points:

(1) publish sources
(2) publish "binaries", ie, applications ready to run
(3) QAed and especially sorted out content which is the most useful
for particular auditory

Back to the subject activity, here, just an example:

(1) I don't see any problems to have bunch on source repositories
(2) I don't see any problems that every of these source repositories
will be available in running form from the App Store
(3) I don't see how (1) and (2) might prevent providing most appropriate
content for different kinds of users

The current status within the SL is that:

(1) git.sl.o provides all needs, pretty enough for people who know
how to use Git
(2) technically, all git.sl.o repos might be uploaded to the ASLO
for multiple entities, eg, Gambiarra, Gambiarra-ng, 
It-Is-Not-Gambiarra-You-Knew-Before
(3) but, ASLO does not provide decent ways to sort out its content to
meet the (3), especially for different kinds of
users/usage-scenarios (the Internet is not the same as one particular 
country/reagion
and not the same as particular school/class).

Nevertheless, I don't think that current buggy status is an excuse for
messing all three points, e.g., trying to keep one entity with the name
"Gambiarra" on git.sl.o and App Store (ASLO). The better way for me is
keeping crystal-clear picture in mind for one part of people and trying
to fix it for the others.

-- 
Aleksey
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Daniel Narvaez 
+1

On Tuesday, 24 December 2013, Walter Bender wrote:

> It is current and we should be following it, IMHO.
>
> -walter
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Narvaez 
> >
> wrote:
> > (Assuming the policy is not obsolete or something, I think we should
> move it
> > to developer.sugarlabs.org).
> >
> >
> > On 24 December 2013 21:51, Daniel Narvaez 
> > >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> By the way, we seem to have a non responsive maintainer policy already.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Policy_for_nonresponsive_maintainers
> >>
> >> Any reason we are not following it?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24 December 2013 21:49, Daniel Narvaez 
> >> >
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 24 December 2013 15:10, Aleksey Lim 
> >>> >
> wrote:
> 
>  On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>  > IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git
> is
>  > set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
>  > on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
>  > even after Alan uploads new ones.)
> 
>  I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with
> git.sl.o
>  in this case (passing ownership).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ASLO is more similar to a distribution than to gitorious repositories
> and
> >>> distributions usually have non-responsive maintainer policies
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/beyond-pkging.html#mia-qa
> >>>
> 
>  At the end, the important thing is that
>  both versions should be available for users (the original version, and
>  the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly possible
> to
>  have only one download entity [on ASLO].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If we have to choose, I think it's more important to make an improved
> >>> activity available then old versions provided by the original
> maintainer.
> >>>
> 
>  In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
>  to handle this kind of issues in the future.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  We can reevaluate when SN takes over, but given the current
> >>> infrastructure I think giving Alan joint ownership is the most
> pragmatic
> >>> approach.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Narvaez
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Narvaez
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>


-- 
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Walter Bender 
It is current and we should be following it, IMHO.

-walter

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
> (Assuming the policy is not obsolete or something, I think we should move it
> to developer.sugarlabs.org).
>
>
> On 24 December 2013 21:51, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
>>
>> By the way, we seem to have a non responsive maintainer policy already.
>>
>>
>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Policy_for_nonresponsive_maintainers
>>
>> Any reason we are not following it?
>>
>>
>> On 24 December 2013 21:49, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24 December 2013 15:10, Aleksey Lim  wrote:

 On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
 > IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
 > set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
 > on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
 > even after Alan uploads new ones.)

 I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with git.sl.o
 in this case (passing ownership).
>>>
>>>
>>> ASLO is more similar to a distribution than to gitorious repositories and
>>> distributions usually have non-responsive maintainer policies
>>>
>>>
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/beyond-pkging.html#mia-qa
>>>

 At the end, the important thing is that
 both versions should be available for users (the original version, and
 the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly possible to
 have only one download entity [on ASLO].
>>>
>>>
>>> If we have to choose, I think it's more important to make an improved
>>> activity available then old versions provided by the original maintainer.
>>>

 In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
 to handle this kind of issues in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>  We can reevaluate when SN takes over, but given the current
>>> infrastructure I think giving Alan joint ownership is the most pragmatic
>>> approach.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Daniel Narvaez 
(Assuming the policy is not obsolete or something, I think we should move
it to developer.sugarlabs.org).


On 24 December 2013 21:51, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:

> By the way, we seem to have a non responsive maintainer policy already.
>
>
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Policy_for_nonresponsive_maintainers
>
> Any reason we are not following it?
>
>
> On 24 December 2013 21:49, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:
>
>> On 24 December 2013 15:10, Aleksey Lim  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>>> > IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
>>> > set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
>>> > on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
>>> > even after Alan uploads new ones.)
>>>
>>> I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with git.sl.o
>>> in this case (passing ownership).
>>
>>
>> ASLO is more similar to a distribution than to gitorious repositories and
>> distributions usually have non-responsive maintainer policies
>>
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
>>
>>
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/beyond-pkging.html#mia-qa
>>
>>
>>> At the end, the important thing is that
>>> both versions should be available for users (the original version, and
>>> the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly possible to
>>> have only one download entity [on ASLO].
>>>
>>
>> If we have to choose, I think it's more important to make an improved
>> activity available then old versions provided by the original maintainer.
>>
>>
>>> In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
>>> to handle this kind of issues in the future.
>>>
>>
>>  We can reevaluate when SN takes over, but given the current
>> infrastructure I think giving Alan joint ownership is the most pragmatic
>> approach.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>



-- 
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Daniel Narvaez 
By the way, we seem to have a non responsive maintainer policy already.

http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Policy_for_nonresponsive_maintainers

Any reason we are not following it?


On 24 December 2013 21:49, Daniel Narvaez  wrote:

> On 24 December 2013 15:10, Aleksey Lim  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>> > IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
>> > set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
>> > on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
>> > even after Alan uploads new ones.)
>>
>> I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with git.sl.o
>> in this case (passing ownership).
>
>
> ASLO is more similar to a distribution than to gitorious repositories and
> distributions usually have non-responsive maintainer policies
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
>
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/beyond-pkging.html#mia-qa
>
>
>> At the end, the important thing is that
>> both versions should be available for users (the original version, and
>> the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly possible to
>> have only one download entity [on ASLO].
>>
>
> If we have to choose, I think it's more important to make an improved
> activity available then old versions provided by the original maintainer.
>
>
>> In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
>> to handle this kind of issues in the future.
>>
>
>  We can reevaluate when SN takes over, but given the current
> infrastructure I think giving Alan joint ownership is the most pragmatic
> approach.
>



-- 
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Daniel Narvaez 
On 24 December 2013 15:10, Aleksey Lim  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
> > IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
> > set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
> > on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
> > even after Alan uploads new ones.)
>
> I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with git.sl.o
> in this case (passing ownership).


ASLO is more similar to a distribution than to gitorious repositories and
distributions usually have non-responsive maintainer policies

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/beyond-pkging.html#mia-qa


> At the end, the important thing is that
> both versions should be available for users (the original version, and
> the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly possible to
> have only one download entity [on ASLO].
>

If we have to choose, I think it's more important to make an improved
activity available then old versions provided by the original maintainer.


> In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
> to handle this kind of issues in the future.
>

 We can reevaluate when SN takes over, but given the current infrastructure
I think giving Alan joint ownership is the most pragmatic approach.
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Daniel Narvaez 
I agree. I think cloning is a good approach for developers (git), and I
wish gitorious was designed more like github in that respect.

Though I think on ASLO we should have editorial control and decide who gets
to publish code under a certain name because that's what works best for
users and, in practice, I don't see controversies arising between
developers... We can reevaluate the first time an activity author actually
complains about it :)


On 24 December 2013 15:22, Gonzalo Odiard  wrote:

> One problem with this idea of multiple developers cloning,
> having multiple versions and so,
> is than we transfer to the user the complexity of deal with what activity
> use.
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Aleksey Lim wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>> > IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
>> > set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
>> > on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
>> > even after Alan uploads new ones.)
>>
>> I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with git.sl.o
>> in this case (passing ownership). At the end, the important thing is that
>> both versions should be available for users (the original version, and
>> the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly possible to
>> have only one download entity [on ASLO].
>>
>> In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
>> to handle this kind of issues in the future.
>>
>> > regards.
>> >
>> > -walter
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Aleksey Lim 
>> wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:02:42AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > >> Hi Aleksey,
>> > >> I agree with you, but Alan have tried to communicate with Luiz for a
>> month,
>> > >> and the activity didn't had any development for 4 years,
>> > >> then in this case, is not a disrespect to the maintainer.
>> > >> It is possible at least add Alan to the project as owner, without
>> remove
>> > >> Luiz?
>> > >
>> > > If there are issues with having new repo, could you share them.
>> > >
>> > > Otherwise, git.sl.o, in my mind, is a regular site to host users'
>> > > repositories. For example, I will rather stop using github if its
>> admins
>> > > decide to grant permissions to the repo I created to other people.
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> Gonzalo
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Aleksey Lim 
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:11:29AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > >> > > Bernie, Aleksey,
>> > >> > > Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
>> > >> > > The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
>> > >> > > can you give him access to the git repository?
>> > >> > > Thanks
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Hi,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I took a timeout to wait for original author's response...
>> > >> > In any case, the only author for the Gambiarra activity is Luiz
>> Irber.
>> > >> > I don't think it is useful to disrespect original author's priority
>> > >> > and let other people commit to the repository without any
>> permissions.
>> > >> > I guess nothing prevent new developers support further patches in
>> a fork
>> > >> > or even new top-level repository.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Gonzalo
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
>> > >> > > alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > Hi,
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
>> > >> > > > Now, I have some changes:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > -add translations for other languages
>> > >> > > > -add compatibility with new sugar versions
>> > >> > > > -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Regards!
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Alan
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > ___
>> > >> > > > Sugar-devel mailing list
>> > >> > > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> > >> > > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > Aleksey
>> > >> >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Aleksey
>> > > ___
>> > > Sugar-devel mailing list
>> > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Walter Bender
>> > Sugar Labs
>> > http://www.sugarlabs.org
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Aleksey
>>
>
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>


-- 
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Chris Leonard 
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Aleksey Lim  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:02:42AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> Hi Aleksey,
>> I agree with you, but Alan have tried to communicate with Luiz for a month,
>> and the activity didn't had any development for 4 years,
>> then in this case, is not a disrespect to the maintainer.
>> It is possible at least add Alan to the project as owner, without remove
>> Luiz?
>
> If there are issues with having new repo, could you share them.
>
> Otherwise, git.sl.o, in my mind, is a regular site to host users'
> repositories. For example, I will rather stop using github if its admins
> decide to grant permissions to the repo I created to other people.
>

Aleksey,

As a general rule, I cannot disagree with your concerns about FOSS
standards of ownership in general.  However, Sugar Labs in some ways
does more to respect the original owner's work by taking over control
of it and keeping it going.  In particular, we have a lot of
first-time authors that generate an activity as a student project, but
are not really committed to it's long-term maintenance in the way
people usually are in a FOSS project.

I fully believe that if an original author returned to active
development, the caretaker would be more than willing to relinquish
control back, including hte possibility of forking their work off and
giving the original owner a rolled-back repo.

In this case, I am in favor fo turning over ownership and not forking,
it also helps a lot with keeping Pootle simpler  (for thos activities
tha a=re set up).

Just my 2 cents.

cjl
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Gonzalo Odiard 
One problem with this idea of multiple developers cloning,
having multiple versions and so,
is than we transfer to the user the complexity of deal with what activity
use.

Gonzalo


On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Aleksey Lim  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
> > IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
> > set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
> > on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
> > even after Alan uploads new ones.)
>
> I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with git.sl.o
> in this case (passing ownership). At the end, the important thing is that
> both versions should be available for users (the original version, and
> the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly possible to
> have only one download entity [on ASLO].
>
> In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
> to handle this kind of issues in the future.
>
> > regards.
> >
> > -walter
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Aleksey Lim 
> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:02:42AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > >> Hi Aleksey,
> > >> I agree with you, but Alan have tried to communicate with Luiz for a
> month,
> > >> and the activity didn't had any development for 4 years,
> > >> then in this case, is not a disrespect to the maintainer.
> > >> It is possible at least add Alan to the project as owner, without
> remove
> > >> Luiz?
> > >
> > > If there are issues with having new repo, could you share them.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, git.sl.o, in my mind, is a regular site to host users'
> > > repositories. For example, I will rather stop using github if its
> admins
> > > decide to grant permissions to the repo I created to other people.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Gonzalo
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Aleksey Lim 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:11:29AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > >> > > Bernie, Aleksey,
> > >> > > Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
> > >> > > The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
> > >> > > can you give him access to the git repository?
> > >> > > Thanks
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> > I took a timeout to wait for original author's response...
> > >> > In any case, the only author for the Gambiarra activity is Luiz
> Irber.
> > >> > I don't think it is useful to disrespect original author's priority
> > >> > and let other people commit to the repository without any
> permissions.
> > >> > I guess nothing prevent new developers support further patches in a
> fork
> > >> > or even new top-level repository.
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Gonzalo
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
> > >> > > alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Hi,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
> > >> > > > Now, I have some changes:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -add translations for other languages
> > >> > > > -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> > >> > > > -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Regards!
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Alan
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ___
> > >> > > > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > >> > > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> > >> > > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Aleksey
> > >> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aleksey
> > > ___
> > > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Walter Bender
> > Sugar Labs
> > http://www.sugarlabs.org
> >
>
> --
> Aleksey
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Aleksey Lim 
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
> IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
> set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
> on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
> even after Alan uploads new ones.)

I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with git.sl.o
in this case (passing ownership). At the end, the important thing is that
both versions should be available for users (the original version, and
the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly possible to
have only one download entity [on ASLO].

In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
to handle this kind of issues in the future.

> regards.
> 
> -walter
> 
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Aleksey Lim  wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:02:42AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> >> Hi Aleksey,
> >> I agree with you, but Alan have tried to communicate with Luiz for a month,
> >> and the activity didn't had any development for 4 years,
> >> then in this case, is not a disrespect to the maintainer.
> >> It is possible at least add Alan to the project as owner, without remove
> >> Luiz?
> >
> > If there are issues with having new repo, could you share them.
> >
> > Otherwise, git.sl.o, in my mind, is a regular site to host users'
> > repositories. For example, I will rather stop using github if its admins
> > decide to grant permissions to the repo I created to other people.
> >
> >>
> >> Gonzalo
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Aleksey Lim  
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:11:29AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> >> > > Bernie, Aleksey,
> >> > > Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
> >> > > The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
> >> > > can you give him access to the git repository?
> >> > > Thanks
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I took a timeout to wait for original author's response...
> >> > In any case, the only author for the Gambiarra activity is Luiz Irber.
> >> > I don't think it is useful to disrespect original author's priority
> >> > and let other people commit to the repository without any permissions.
> >> > I guess nothing prevent new developers support further patches in a fork
> >> > or even new top-level repository.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Gonzalo
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
> >> > > alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
> >> > > > Now, I have some changes:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -add translations for other languages
> >> > > > -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> >> > > > -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Alan
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ___
> >> > > > Sugar-devel mailing list
> >> > > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> >> > > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Aleksey
> >> >
> >
> > --
> > Aleksey
> > ___
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 

-- 
Aleksey
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Walter Bender 
IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
even after Alan uploads new ones.)

regards.

-walter

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Aleksey Lim  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:02:42AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> Hi Aleksey,
>> I agree with you, but Alan have tried to communicate with Luiz for a month,
>> and the activity didn't had any development for 4 years,
>> then in this case, is not a disrespect to the maintainer.
>> It is possible at least add Alan to the project as owner, without remove
>> Luiz?
>
> If there are issues with having new repo, could you share them.
>
> Otherwise, git.sl.o, in my mind, is a regular site to host users'
> repositories. For example, I will rather stop using github if its admins
> decide to grant permissions to the repo I created to other people.
>
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Aleksey Lim  wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:11:29AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> > > Bernie, Aleksey,
>> > > Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
>> > > The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
>> > > can you give him access to the git repository?
>> > > Thanks
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I took a timeout to wait for original author's response...
>> > In any case, the only author for the Gambiarra activity is Luiz Irber.
>> > I don't think it is useful to disrespect original author's priority
>> > and let other people commit to the repository without any permissions.
>> > I guess nothing prevent new developers support further patches in a fork
>> > or even new top-level repository.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Gonzalo
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
>> > > alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
>> > > > Now, I have some changes:
>> > > >
>> > > > -add translations for other languages
>> > > > -add compatibility with new sugar versions
>> > > > -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
>> > > >
>> > > > Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
>> > > >
>> > > > https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards!
>> > > >
>> > > > Alan
>> > > >
>> > > > ___
>> > > > Sugar-devel mailing list
>> > > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> > > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Aleksey
>> >
>
> --
> Aleksey
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Aleksey Lim 
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:02:42AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> Hi Aleksey,
> I agree with you, but Alan have tried to communicate with Luiz for a month,
> and the activity didn't had any development for 4 years,
> then in this case, is not a disrespect to the maintainer.
> It is possible at least add Alan to the project as owner, without remove
> Luiz?

If there are issues with having new repo, could you share them.

Otherwise, git.sl.o, in my mind, is a regular site to host users'
repositories. For example, I will rather stop using github if its admins
decide to grant permissions to the repo I created to other people.

> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Aleksey Lim  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:11:29AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > > Bernie, Aleksey,
> > > Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
> > > The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
> > > can you give him access to the git repository?
> > > Thanks
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I took a timeout to wait for original author's response...
> > In any case, the only author for the Gambiarra activity is Luiz Irber.
> > I don't think it is useful to disrespect original author's priority
> > and let other people commit to the repository without any permissions.
> > I guess nothing prevent new developers support further patches in a fork
> > or even new top-level repository.
> >
> > >
> > > Gonzalo
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
> > > alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
> > > > Now, I have some changes:
> > > >
> > > > -add translations for other languages
> > > > -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> > > > -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
> > > >
> > > > Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
> > > >
> > > > https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
> > > >
> > > > Regards!
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> > > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Aleksey
> >

-- 
Aleksey
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-24 Thread Gonzalo Odiard 
Hi Aleksey,
I agree with you, but Alan have tried to communicate with Luiz for a month,
and the activity didn't had any development for 4 years,
then in this case, is not a disrespect to the maintainer.
It is possible at least add Alan to the project as owner, without remove
Luiz?

Gonzalo


On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Aleksey Lim  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:11:29AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> > Bernie, Aleksey,
> > Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
> > The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
> > can you give him access to the git repository?
> > Thanks
>
> Hi,
>
> I took a timeout to wait for original author's response...
> In any case, the only author for the Gambiarra activity is Luiz Irber.
> I don't think it is useful to disrespect original author's priority
> and let other people commit to the repository without any permissions.
> I guess nothing prevent new developers support further patches in a fork
> or even new top-level repository.
>
> >
> > Gonzalo
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
> > alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
> > > Now, I have some changes:
> > >
> > > -add translations for other languages
> > > -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> > > -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
> > >
> > > Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
> > >
> > > https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
> > >
> > > Regards!
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Aleksey
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-23 Thread Aleksey Lim 
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:11:29AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> Bernie, Aleksey,
> Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
> The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
> can you give him access to the git repository?
> Thanks

Hi,

I took a timeout to wait for original author's response...
In any case, the only author for the Gambiarra activity is Luiz Irber.
I don't think it is useful to disrespect original author's priority
and let other people commit to the repository without any permissions.
I guess nothing prevent new developers support further patches in a fork
or even new top-level repository.

> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
> alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
> > Now, I have some changes:
> >
> > -add translations for other languages
> > -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> > -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
> >
> > Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
> >
> > https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
> >
> > Regards!
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > ___
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >
> >

-- 
Aleksey
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-20 Thread Bernie Innocenti 
Aleksey, could you please do this? If you're busy, I'll do it over the
week-end.

On 12/19/13 05:11, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> Bernie, Aleksey,
> Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
> The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
> can you give him access to the git repository?
> Thanks
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn
> mailto:alan...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
> Now, I have some changes:
> 
> -add translations for other languages
> -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
> 
> Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
> 
> https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
> 
> Regards!
> 
> Alan
> 
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org 
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> 
> 


-- 
 _ // Bernie Innocenti
 \X/  http://codewiz.org
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-12-19 Thread Gonzalo Odiard 
Bernie, Aleksey,
Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
can you give him access to the git repository?
Thanks

Gonzalo


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
> Now, I have some changes:
>
> -add translations for other languages
> -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
>
> Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
>
> https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
>
> Regards!
>
> Alan
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-11-18 Thread Gonzalo Odiard 
4 days ago? The last commit was 4 years ago! :)
You can work locally, and wait a few days more,
I think is safe 2 weeks from the request.

Gonzalo


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ok. How many days I need wait?
> I send a email to the autor on 14/11..
> I don't want create another GIT with the same.. no have sense.
> git.sugarlabs have a lot of unnecessary clones of some activities
> wasting space..
>
> --
> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:40:20 -0200
> From: gonz...@laptop.org
> To: alan...@hotmail.com
> CC: sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game
>
>
> Nice!
> If you don't have reply, can ask bernie or alsroot help.
> If not, can clone it
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
> alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
> Now, I have some changes:
>
> -add translations for other languages
> -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
>
> Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
>
> https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
>
> Regards!
>
> Alan
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>
> ___ Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-11-18 Thread Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn 
Ok. How many days I need wait?I send a email to the autor on 14/11..I don't 
want create another GIT with the same.. no have sense.git.sugarlabs have a lot 
of unnecessary clones of some activitieswasting space..

Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:40:20 -0200
From: gonz...@laptop.org
To: alan...@hotmail.com
CC: sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

Nice!If you don't have reply, can ask bernie or alsroot help.If not, can clone 
it
Gonzalo

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn  
wrote:




Hi,
I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.Now, I have some 
changes:

-add translations for other languages-add compatibility with new sugar 
versions-replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames

Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra


Regards!
Alan  

___

Sugar-devel mailing list

Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel





___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel 
  ___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-11-18 Thread Gonzalo Odiard 
Nice!
If you don't have reply, can ask bernie or alsroot help.
If not, can clone it

Gonzalo


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn <
alan...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
> Now, I have some changes:
>
> -add translations for other languages
> -add compatibility with new sugar versions
> -replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
>
> Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
>
> https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra
>
> Regards!
>
> Alan
>
> ___
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

[Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

2013-11-18 Thread Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn 
Hi,
I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.Now, I have some 
changes:
-add translations for other languages-add compatibility with new sugar 
versions-replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
https://git.sugarlabs.org/gambiarra

Regards!
Alan  ___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel